LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


THE    INFLUENCE   OF    BEAUMONT 
AND  FLETCHER   ON   SHAKSPERE 


ASHLEY  H.  THORNDIKE,  Ph.  D. 

Associate  Professor  of  English,  Western  Reserve  University 


WORCESTER,  MASSACHUSETTS. 
PRESS  OF  OLIVER  B.  WOOD 

1901 


Copyright,  1901, 
BY  ASHLEY  H.  THORNDIKE. 


THE    INFLUENCE    OF    BEAUMONT 
AND   FLETCHER   ON   SHAKSPERE 


ASHLEY  H.  THORND1KE,  Ph.  D. 

Associate  Professor  of  English,  Western  Reserve  University 


WORCESTER,  MASSACHUSETTS. 

PRESS  OF  OLIVER  B.  WOOD 

1901 


UNIVERSITY 

OF 


PREFACE. 


This  volume  is  based  on  a  portion  of  a  dissertation  on  "Some  Con- 
temporary Influences  on  Shakspere,"  which  was  presented  to  the 
Faculty  of  Arts  and  Sciences  of  Harvard  University  to  fulfill  a  require- 
ment for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy.  That  dissertation  dealt 
with  the  relations  of  As  You  Like  It  to  pastoral  and  Robin  Hood 
plays,  and  of  Hamlet  to  tragedies  of  revenge,  as  well  as  with  the  influ- 
ence of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  Shakspere's  romances.  This  last 
division  has  been  rewritten  and  considerably  enlarged  and  forms  this 
volume.  My  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  indebtedness  of  the  romances 
to  the  contemporary  drama  are  thus  offered  without  the  support  which 
might  perhaps  have  been  afforded  by  the  co-ordinate  investigations. 

A  study,  however,  of  Shakspere  as  an  adapter  requires  less  apology 
now  than  it  would  have  four  years  ago  when  I  first  began  this  work. 
Shaksperean  criticism  has  made  a  decided  advance  since  then  toward 
the  adoption  of  the  point  of  view  and  methods  of  historical  criticism. 
Mr.  Sidney  Lee's  discussion  of  the  sonnets  as  a  representative  of  a 
current  literary  form  has  opened  the  field  and  pointed  the  way  for 
future  students  of  the  plays.  My  incentive  to  a  historical  study  came 
entirely  from  the  lectures  of  Professor  Barrett  Wendell  at  Harvard 
University  and  from  his  suggestive  study,  William  Shakspere.  While 
the  hypothesis  in  regard  to  the  influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
with  which  I  began  rny  work  was  the  immediate  result  of  my  reading 
and,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  never  been  advanced  before,  whatever 
merit  there  may  be  in  the  general  method  and  point  of  view  of  this 
essay  is  due  to  the  instruction  and  example  of  Mr.  Wendell.  I 
venture  to  hope  that,  however  my  conclusions  may  be  estimated,  the 
investigation  on  which  they  are  based  will  be  of  some  interest  in 
illustrating  the  application  of  the  historical  method  to  the  study  of 
Shakspere. 

In  condensing  the  results  of  my  work  for  publication,  it  has  been 
necessary  to  omit  some  investigations  not  closely  connected  with  the 
main  thesis  and  merely  to  note  the  results  of  others.  Among  these 

168512 


IV  PREFACE. 

are  a  discussion  of  the  Revels  companies,  1601-1611,  additional  notes 
on  the  plays  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  after  1611,  an  alphabetical  list 
of  plays  acted  1601-1611,  some  tables  illustrating  the  use  of  colloquial- 
isms, of  'em  and  them,  and  various  verse  tests. 

Like  every  other  student  in  the  history  of  the  drama,  I  owe  much 
to  the  books  of  Mr.  Fleay.  I  have  found  many  occasions  to  differ 
with  him  and  to  criticise  his  methods,  but  I  have  also  had  abundant 
opportunity  to  admire  his  extensive  knowledge  and  brilliant  induc- 
tions. My  indebtedness  to  Mr.  Wendell's  book  on  Shakspere  is 
apparent;  in  expressing  my  thanks  I  wish  I  could  also  indicate  the 
extent  of  my  obligations  to  his  friendly  and  stimulating  criticisms  and 
suggestions  made  while  my  investigation  was  in  progress.  I  am  also 
greatly  indebted  for  helpful  criticism  to  Professor  George  I/.  Kitt- 
redge,  to  whom  I  have  frequently  turned  for  suggestion  and  guidance, 
and  to  Mr.  Jefferson  B.  Fletcher,  and  Professor  George  P.  Baker. 

ASHIvEY  H.  THORNDIKE. 

WESTERN  RESERVE  UNIVERSITY, 
CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER.  PAGE. 

I.    INTRODUCTION i 

II.    INTRODUCTION  TO  CHRONOLOGY  AND  STAGE  HISTORY,  9 

A.  Biographies. 

B.  Connection  with  Theatrical  Companies. 

C.  The  Plague  and  the  Closing  of  the  Theaters. 

D.  The  Occupancy  of  Blackfriars. 
K.     The  Revels  Companies. 

F.  Shakspere  and  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  writing 

for  the  King's  men. 

G.  The  Evidence  of  folios,  quartos,  and  verse  tests. 
H.     The  "em-them"  test. 

I.     Court  Masques  and  Chronology. 

III.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  SHAKSPERE'S  ROMANCES  .        .  3° 

IV.  CHRONOLOGY   AND  DISCUSSION  OF  Henry  VIII  AND 

THE  Two  Noble  Kinsmen  ......  35 

V.    CHRONOLOGY  OF    THE    PLAYS    OF    BEAUMONT   AND 

FLETCHER 57 

VI.    THE  DRAMA,  1601-1611 96 

VII.    GENERAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  ROMANCES  OF 

BEAUMONT  AND  FLETCHER 109 

VIII.    GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    SHAKSPERE' s    RO- 
MANCES           133 

IX.     Cymbeline  AND  Philaster 152- 

X.     A   Winters  Tale  AND  The  Tempest     ....  161 

XI.    CONCLUSION      .        .        . 167 

APPENDIX.    Pericles 171 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   NOTE. 


TEXTS. 

Shakspere's  plays.     "Globe  Edition."     W.   G.   Clark   and  W.   A. 

Wright.     All  line  references  are  to  this  edition. 
"The   Two   Noble   Kinsmen."     Ed.   by   Harold    Littledale.      New 

Shakspere  Society.     Series  II.     7,  8.  15.     London,  1885. 
Plays  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.     "  Works."     Ed.  by  Rev.  Alexan- 
der Dyce.     ii  vols.     London,  1843.     Page  references  are  to  this 

edition. 
"  Works."     Ed.  by  George  Darley.    Routledge's  "  Series  of  the  Old 

Dramatists."     2  vols.     This  edition  is  used  when  there  is  no 

reference  to  Dyce. 
CRITICAL  WORKS,  ETC. 
The  following  list  includes  only  those  books  or  articles  which  are 

repeatedly  referred  to  and  often  in  abbreviated  form.    Where 

the  abbreviations  are  not  evident  they  are  given  in  this  list. 

Other  books  referred  to  are  named  in  full  in  the  foot  notes. 
A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama,  1559-1642.     F.  G. 

Fleay.     2  vols.     London,  1891.     Referred  to  as  Chr.     When  no 

page  number  is  given,  the  reference  is  invariably  to  the  play 

under  discussion  and  can  be  found  without  difficulty. 
A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,  1559-1642.     F.  G.  Fleay. 

London,  1890.     H.ofS. 
A  Chronicle  History  of  the  Life  and  Work  of  William  Shakespeare. 

F.  G.  Fleay.     London,  1886. 
Outlines  of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare.    J.   O.  Halliwell   Phillipps. 

Sixth  Edition.     London,  1886.     H.  P.     Outlines. 
A  Life  of  William  Shakespeare.     Sidney  Lee.     London  and  New 

York,  1899. 
A  History  of  English  Dramatic  Literature.     A.  W.  Ward.     3  vols. 

New  and  revised  edition.     London,  1899. 
History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  to  the  time  of  Shakespeare,  and 

Annals  of  the  Stage.    J.  Payne  Collier.     3  vols.     London,  1874. 

Abbreviated,  Collier. 

A  New  Variorum  Edition  of  Shakespeare .     H.  H.  Furness.    Phila- 
delphia.    The  Tempest. 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   NOTE.  Vll 

The  Diary  of  Philip  Henslowe  from  1597  to  1600.    J.  Payne  Collier. 

London.     For  the  Shakespeare  Society,  1845.     H.  D. 
Annales  or  a  Generall  Chronicle  of  England.   Begun  by  John  Stow. 

Continued  to  1631  by  Bdmund  Howes.     London,  1631.     Stow. 
The  Progresses  and  Public  Processions  of  Queen  Elizabeth.     New 

edition  in  3  vols.    John  Nichols.     London,  1823. 

The  Progresses,  Processions of  King  James  the  First,  etc. 

John  Nichols.     4  vols.     London,  1828. 

Extracts  from  the  Accounts  of  the  Revels  at  Court.  P.  Cunning- 
ham. For  the  Shakespeare  Society.  London,  1842. 

William  Shakspere.  A  Study  in  Elizabethan  Literature.  Bar- 
rett Wendell.  New  York,  1894. 

Quellen  Studien  zu  den  drama  Ben  Jonson's,  John  Marston*s  und 
Beaumont  und  Fletcher's.  Miinchener  Beitrage  VI.  E.  Koeppel. 
Erlangen  und  Leipzig.  1895. 

Die  Englischen  Maskenspiele.     Alfred  Soergel.     Halle,  1882. 

Francis  Beaumont.  A  Critical  Study.  G.  C.  Macaulay.  London, 
1883. 


CHAPTER  I. 
INTRODUCTION. 

In  considering  the  question  of  Shakspere's  indebtedness  to 
two  of  his  contemporaries,  we  can  have  no  better  starting  point 
than  the  earliest  known  reference  to  Shakspere  as  a  dramatist, 
a  passage  written  by  a  contemporary  play-wright,  Robert 
Greene. 

"For  there  is  an  upstart  Crow,  beautified  with  our  feathers, 
that  with  his  Tyger' s  heart  wrapt  in  a  Player' s  hide,  supposes 
that  he  is  as  well  able  to  bumbast  out  a  blanke  verse  as  is  the 
best  of  you:  and  being  an  absolute  Johannes  fac  totum,  is  in  his 
owne  conceit  the  onely  Shake-scene  in  a  countrie. ' ' * 

Although  no  one  believes  that  in  our  sense  of  the  word  Shak- 
spere was  a  plagiarist,  Greene's  accusation  contains  an  element 
of  truth  worth  keeping  in  mind. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Shakspere  began  play-writing  by 
imitating  or  re-vamping  the  work  of  others.  Titus  Andronicus 
and  Henry  VI,  so  far  as  they  are  his,  are  certainly  imitative 
of  other  plays  of  the  time,  while  Richard  II  and  Richard  HI 
show  the  influence  of  Marlowe's  tragedies,  and  Love '  s  Labour' s 
Lost,  the  influence  of  I/yly's  comedies.  During  the  period 
that  he  was  learning  his  art  and  experimenting  with  various 
kinds  of  plays,  it  is  generally  recognized  that  he  was  indebted 
to  the  dramatists  and  the  dramatic  conventions  of  his  time. 

After  this  early  experimental  period,  however,  his  indebted- 
ness to  his  contemporaries  has  received  little  notice.  In  fact, 
the  idea  that  Shakspere  in  his  maturity  imitated,  adapted,  or 
to  any  considerable  extent  made  use  of  the  work  of  his  fellow 
dramatists,  has  to  most  students  seemed  absurd.  His  plays 
are  so  immensely  superior  to  those  of  his  contemporaries  that, 
when  resemblances  have  been  noticed,  critics  have  been  wont 
to  say:  'Shakspere  must  have  originated  this  and  the  other 
man  copied  it. '  There  is  a  fallacy  here  which  we  must  avoid ; 
for  the  mere  fact  that  Shakspere's  work  is  the  better  by  no 
means  proves  that  it  is  the  original,  and  in  general  we  may 
well  question  if  his  superiority  so  much  disproves  as  conceals 
his  indebtedness  to  his  contemporaries. 

Whatever  he  touched,  he  transformed  into  a  permanent  work 
of  art;  but  it  is  no  less  true  that  in  his  work  of  transformation 

1  Greene's  Groatsworth  of  Wit.     1592. 


or  creation  he  was  working  under  the  same  conditions  as  his 
fellow  play- wrights.  He  was  an  actor,  and  a  theater-owner, 
conversant  with  all  the  conventions  of  an  Elizabethan  theater 
and  practically  interested  in  the  stage  fashions  and  stage  rival- 
ries of  his  time.  He  made  plays  that  paid,  situations  that  held 
the  interest  of  the  audiences,  characters  that  were  effective  in 
London  theaters.  He  must  have  understood  and  been  influ- 
enced by  the  stage  demand  whose  varying  wants  he  and  his 
fellow  dramatists  were  engaged  in  supplying.  As  in  the  case 
of  any  other  Elizabethan  dramatist,  we  may  be  reasonably  sure 
that  the  final  character  of  his  work  must  have  been  partly  de- 
termined by  definite  objective  causes.  Moreover,  since  he 
sometimes  wrote  in  co-operation  with  and,  doubtless  still  oftener, 
in  competition  with  other  dramatists,  and  since  many  of  these 
were  writers  of  great  originality,  it  is  almost  inconceivable 
that  his  work  was  not  directly  influenced  by  theirs. 

Still  further,  there  is  much  clear  evidence  of  his  use  of  con- 
temporary conventions  and  dramatic  forms.  It  will  be  remem- 
bered, for  example,  that  he  continued  to  write  chronicle-histories 
even  after  that  form  had  been  ridiculed  as  antiquated  and  that 
Hamlet  and  Lear  contain  traces  of  the  ' '  tragedy  of  blood ' ' 
type.  A  closer  adherence  to  current  forms  can  be  seen  in  the 
relation  between  the  Merchant  of  Venice  and  the  Jew  of  Malta 
or  in  the  many  points  of  similarity  between  Hamlet  and  the 
other  Elizabethan  tragedies  dealing  with  the  theme  of  blood- 
revenge.  Characters,  too,  are  often  clearly  developments  of 
types  familiar  on  the  stage;  as,  for  example,  lago  is  a  develop- 
ment of  the  conventional  stage  villian.  Such  facts  as  these 
have  been  frequently  noticed  and  commented  upon,  but  even 
they  have  not  led  to  any  careful  investigation  of  Shakspere's 
indebtedness  to  his  contemporaries. 

Such  investigation  finds  encouragement  not  only  in  Shak- 
spere's relation  as  a  play-wright  to  his  fellow  play- wrights, 
but  also  in  the  almost  invariable  law  of  art  forms  that  the 
developer  excels  the  innovator.  We  know  that  no  one  wrote 
any  English  dramas  until  a  long  period  of  miracle  and  morality 
plays  had  prepared  the  way.  We  know  that  we  can  trace  the 
rise  and  development  of  a  number  of  dramatic  forms  in  the 
thirty  years  preceding  Shakspere's  first  masterly  work.  We 
know  that  the  Elizabethan  literature  in  general  and  the  history 
of  its  drama  in  particular  were  characterized  by  experiment, 
invention,  and  discovery.  In  the  history  of  dramatic  art,  then, 
in  a  period  characterized  by  an  abundance  of  new  forms,  it  is 
only  natural  to  expect  that  the  genius  who  brought  many  of 
these  to  their  highest  perfection  should  not  have  been  so  much 
an  innovator  as  an  adapter.  We  may  naturally  expect  that 
Shakspere's  transcendent  plays  owe  a  considerable  debt  to  the 
less  perfect  but  not  less  original  efforts  of  his  contemporaries. 


In  this  investigation  I  have  undertaken  to  study  some  of 
Shakspere's  plays  in  connection  with  the  conventions  and 
fashions  of  the  Elizabethan  theater.  I  have  also  undertaken 
the  study  of  these  plays  in  connection  with  similar  plays  by 
his  contemporaries.  I  have  by  no  means  exhausted  the  field 
of  possible  contemporary  influences.  Any  one  play,  I  believe, 
shows  almost  countless  effects  of  preceding  plays;  and  only  the 
most  exhaustive  study  of  Shakspere's  work  could  treat  ade- 
quately of  his  total  indebtedness.  Aiming  at  definiteness  rather 
than  completeness,  I  have  merely  considered  the  influence 
on  Shakspere  of  one  current  and  popular  dramatic  form.  I 
have  taken  as  a  point  of  departure  some  of  the  plays  of  Beau- 
vmont  and  Fletcher  and  studied  their  possible  influence  on 
Cymbeline,  the  Tempest,  and  the  Winter1  s  Tale. 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher  began  to  write  plays  toward  the  end 
of  Shakspere's  dramatic  career;  and  by  the  time  of  his  with- 
drawal from  the  stage,  they  were  probably  the  most  popular 
play- wrights  of  the  day.  The  popularity  of  their  plays  seems, 
indeed,  to  have  been  established  almost  at  the  start  and  to  have 
continued  well  into  the  eighteenth  century.  Nor  was  their 
literary  pre-eminence  less  readily  recognized;  their  work  was 
thought  worthy  of  being  classed  with  Shakspere's  by  poets 
and  critics  from  Webster  to  Dryden.  Even  in  the  opinion  of 
critics  to-day,  two  or  three  of  their  masterpieces,  the  Maid' s 
Tragedy  in  particular,  can  well  contest  with  any  other  Eliza- 
bethan tragedies  for  the  rank  next  to  Shakspere's.  Moreover, 
even  from  our  modern  point  of  view,  it  is  easy  to  find  qualities 
in  many  of  their  plays,  such  as  their  variety  of  situations  and 
their  surprising  climaxes,  which  made  them  better  acting  plays, 
greater  stage  successes  even  than  Shakspere's. 

Our  main  interest  in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  work  to-day 
is,  however,  probably  an  historical  one.  Their  work  marks  a 
new  development  in  the  Elizabethan  drama,  and  their  influence 
is  seen  in  nearly  all  the  dramatists  from  1610  to  1640,  to  say 
nothing  of  those  of  the  Restoration.  A  few  of  the  well  known 
facts  of  their  lives  will  at  once  suggest  some  of  the  marked 
distinctions  wrhich  separated  them  from  the  earlier  dramatists. 

In  the  first  place,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  gentlemen  of 
birth  and  breeding;  they  numbered,  as  we  learn  from  dedica- 
tions and  commendatory  verses,  many  friends  among  the  gentle- 
men and  noblemen  of  the  day ;  they  had  little  in  common  with 
the  Bohemian  actor-play-wrights  of  Elizabeth's  reign.  They 
have,  indeed,  been  accused  by  Coleridge  of  being  "  servile  jure 
divino  royalists. ' '  Their  political  opinions  are  not  so  much  in 
evidence  as  this  accusation  would  indicate,  but  the  tone  of  their 
work  is  decidedly  the  tone  of  the  fashionable  world. 

In  the  second  place,  as  became  friends  of  Jonson,  they  began 
writing  with  considerable  notion  of  the  rules  and  requirements 


of  dramatic  art.     This  is,  perhaps,  best  illustrated  by  a  few 
lines  from  Beaumont's  verses  on  Jonson's  Volpone.^ 

"I  would  have  shown 

"  To  all  the  world,  the  art,  which  thou  alone, 
"  Hast  taught  our  tongue,  the  rules  of  time,  of  place, 
"  And  other  rites,  delivered  with  the  grace 
"Of  comic  style,  which  only,  is  far  more 
"Than  any  English  stage  hath  known  before." 

Fletcher,  too,  in  the  address  -to  the  reader  prefixed  to  the 
Faithful  Shepherdess ,  shows  a  similar  critical  knowledge  of  the 
rules  of  his  art.  Many  of  their  plays,  also,  satirize  the  faults 
of  the  contemporary  drama,  and  the  Knight  of  the  Burning 
Pestle  abounds  in  ridicule  of  the  absurdities  of  the  popular 
plays  of  the  day.  They  placed  themselves,  then,  in  opposition 
to  the  vulgar  taste  of  the  time,  and  were  conscious  of  the 
demands  of  a  refined  taste  and  a  requiring  art. 

Nevertheless,  there  is  by  no  means  an  absolute  disconnection 
between  their  plays  and  the  plays  of  the  preceding  half-century. 
Although  we  shall  have  occasion  to  dwell  on  the  novelty  of 
their  plays,  they  are,  of  course,  far  from  being  new.  Possibty, 
there  is  scarcely  a  situation  or  a  character  which  might  not  be 
traced  back  to  an  early  original;  certainly,  there  is  no  play 
which  separates  itself  entirely  from  relationship  with  its  Eliza- 
bethan predecessors.  Indeed  one  needs  to  make  but  a  cursory 
study  of  the  Elizabethan  drama  to  convince  oneself  that  this 
is  true  of  all  plays  as  late  as  1600.  The  continuity  of  theatrical 
tradition  is  rarely  broken.  The  girl  in  doublet  and  hose,  the 
deep-dyed  villain,  the  braggart  coward,  the  faithful  friend,  can 
all  be  traced  at  least  as  far  back  as  the  earliest  days  of  the 
drama.  A  situation  or  a  plot  once  successful  was  sure  to 
be  copied  and  varied  and  developed.  However  much  the 
Elizabethan  dramatists  studied  and  pictured  human  life,  they 
also  kept  closely  in  touch  with  theatrical  conventions. 

A  single  example  may  be  permitted  to  illustrate  these  ob- 
servations. In  1566,  a  play,  Palamon  and  Arcyte,  was  per- 
formed before  Queen  Elizabeth  at  Oxford;  and  among  other 
things  concerning  it,  we  learn  from  Wood's  Ms.'2  "  There  was 
a  good  part  performed  by  the  the  L,ady  Amelia,  who  for  gather- 
ing her  flowers  prettily  in  a  garden  there  represented  and  sing- 
ing sweetly  in  the  time  of  March,  received  eight  angels  for  her 
gracious  reward  by  her  Majesty's  command. ' '  There,  perhaps, 
was  the  germ  of  a  situation  used  over  and  over  again  in  later 
plays  and  adapted  by  Shakspere  into  the  scene  in  which  Per- 
dita  distributes  her  flowers  in  the  Winter' s  Tale, 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  like  Shakspere  and  all  other  Eliza- 

14to,  1607,  acted  1605. 

2Nichols'  Progresses  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  I. 


bethan  dramatists,  took  their  material  where  they  could  find 
it,  and  availed  themselves  of  whatever  had  found  favor  on  the 
stage.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  their  plays 
seemed  very  different  to  the  spectators  of  their  day  from  any 
which  preceded.  This  is  true  of  their  comedies,  with  which 
as  a  class  we  shall  have  little  to  do,  and  it  is  still  more  true  of 
their  tragi-comedies  and  tragedies  which  I  shall  include  by 
the  term  romances.1  In  the  period  1600-1615  there  are  cer- 
tainly few  plays  by  other  authors  that  resemble  these  romances. 
They  are  nothing  like  the  revenge  plays  which  were  pre- 
valent at  the  beginning  of  the  period,  nor  the  "tragedies  of 
blood  "  of  Webster  and  Tourneur,  nor  Chapman's  Bussy  d'Am- 
bois  and  Byron,  nor  the  classical  tragedies  of  Jonson  and  Shak- 
spere. Neither  are  they  like  Macbeth,  Othello,  or  Lear,  trage- 
dies which  deal  with  one  main  emotion  and  center  about  one 
character.  If  they  differ  from  the  plays  which  immediately 
preceded  or  were  contemporary  with  them,  they  differ  still 
more  from  the  earlier  chronicle-histories  or  tragedies.  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher,  in  fact,  created  a  new  dramatic  form,  the 
heroic  romance.  I  shall  later  endeavor  to  establish  this  asser- 
tion by  showing  how  their  romances  differ  from  all  other  plays  of 
the  time  and  how  closely  they  themselves  adhere  to  a  definite 
type.  For  the  present,  we  may  well  enough  rest  on  a  statement 
which  no  one  will  deny,  that  their  romances  were  distinguished 
by  much  that  was  new  in  situations,  plots,  characters,  and - 
poetic  style.^ 

~The  production  of  such  a  series  of  plays  within  a  few  years 
of  each  other  must  certainly  have  influenced  contemporary 
pla}T- writing.  And  our  knowledge  of  Shakspere  surely  justi- 
fies us  in  suspecting  that  no  dramatist  was  more  ready  than  he 
to  make  use  of  whatever  was  popular  and  suited  to  his  pur- 
pose on  the  stage.  v 
It  becomes  a  significant  fact,  then,  that  at  just  about  the 
time  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  romances  appeared,  Shakspere, 
who  had  for  a  number  of  years  been  chiefly  engaged  on  his 
tragedies,  began  writing  a  series  of  plays  differing  from  any 
he  had  previously  written  and  perhaps,  also,  best  designated 
as  romances.  The  common  name  '  romance '  indicates  a  real 
resemblance.  We  saw  a  moment  ago  that  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  romances  differed  markedly  from  almost  all  the  nota- 
ble  tragic  plays  of  their  period;  they  have,  however,  at  least 
a  class  resemblance  to  Cymbeline,  the  Winter's  Tale,  and  the 
Tempest.  Especial  prominence  given  to  a  sentimental  love- 
story,  a  rapid  succession  of  tragic  situations,  a  happy  ending, 
are  examples  of  resemblances  which  must  occur  to  everyone. 

1  Typical  examples  are  :  Philaster,  Four  Plays  in  One,  Thierry  and 
Theodoret,  Cupid's  Revenge,  A  King  and  No  King,  The  Maid's 
Tragedy. 


f| 
I 


Critics  have,  in  fact,  specifically  noted  the  similarities  between 
Philaster  and  Cymbelin^. 

Moreover,  there  is  an  abrupt  change  from  Shakspere's  pre- 
vious work  to  his  romances.  Sometime  between  1601  and 
1608  he  wrote  the  series  of  tragedies  from  Hamlet  to  Antony 
and  Cleopatra;  gnmpi-img_Jv»twpgTi  i6r>a  pnH  tfiy;;^  r)p  jrorote 
Cymbeline,  the  WinJeTlTTale  ,  and  the  Tempest.  There  were 
other  plays  probably  during  these  two  periods  —  Troilus  and 
Cressida,  Measure  for  Measure,  Pericles,  Timon  —  but  some  of 
these  are  not  wholly  Shakspere's,  and  all  are  of  more  doubtful 
date.  They  perhaps  indicate  periods  of  weakness  in  creative 
power,  of  searching  after  new  forms,2  but  they  cannot  be 
classified  under  either  of  the  groups  above  —  the  great  tragedies 

*or  the  romances.  These  two  groups  are  absolutely  distinct; 
they  differ  enormously  in  general  effect.  Still  further,  this 
transition  from  the  tragedies  to  the  romances  was  accomplished 
in  one  or  two  years  at  most;  for  the  student  of  Shakspere's 

L§rt,  therefore,  the  hiatus  has  not  been  an  easy  one  to  bridge. 
The  only  explanation  that  I  know  to  have  been  offered,  is 
that  of  a  subjective  change  in  Shakspere.  It  is  stated  that  he 
passed  out  of  a  period  of  life,  gloomy,  passionate,  full  of  suffer- 
into  one  of  philosophic  calm,  renewed  optimism,  and  final 
reconciliation:  or  as  Mr.  Dowden  puts  it,  he  passed  "out  of 
the  depths  '  '  and  rested  '  '  on  the  heights.  '  '  It  would  be  stupid 
to  deny  the  possibility  of  such  a  change.  No  one  imagines 
that  Shakspere's  mind  was  the  same  when  he  was  writing 
Hamlet  as  when  he  was  writing  the  Tempest;  and  what  actual 
personal  circumstances  may  have  accompanied  these  varying 
creative  moods  is  certainly  open  to  conjecture  without  any 
possibility  of  disproof.  Such  subjective  explanations,  how- 
ever, are  at  best  only  attempts  to  interpret  the  author's  moods 
in  terms  of  the  aesthetic  effect  his  work  exerts  upon  us:  and 
they  give  us  few  clues  as  to  the  actual  methods  of  his  creative 
art.  We  are  on  far  safer  grounds  when  we  study  objec- 
tive influences;  and  a  mere  re-insistance  on  our  point  of  view 
—  the  study  of  Shakspere  as  an  Elizabethan  dramatist  —  must 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  no  decided  change  in  the  character 
of  his  plays  would  have  been  likely  to  take  place  without  some 
objective  cause. 

Such  a  cause  for  his  change  from  the  tragedies  to  the 
romances  I  find  in  the  production  at  about  the  same  time  of  a 

^series  of  romances  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  I  think,  also, 
that  Shakspere's  romances  show  definite  evidences  of  the  influ- 
ence of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  In  order  to  establish  any 
probability  for  these  opinions,  there  is  necessary  (  i  )  an  examina- 
tion of  the  dates  of  Shakspere's  and  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 

1  See  B.  Iveonhardt.     Anglia  8. 

2  See  William  Shakspere  by  Barrett  Wendell,     p.  334. 


romances  in  order  to  determine  if  the  latter  preceded,  and  (2) 
an  examination  of  such  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  romances 
as  date  early  enough  in  order  to  discover  their  distinguishing 
characteristics,  and  a  like  examination  of  Shakspere's  three 
romances  in  search  of  indications  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
influence. 

In  addition  to  these  two  principal  investigations  there  are 
some  minor  ones  involved  by  them.  The  rather  general  opin- 
ion that  both  Shakspere  and  Fletcher  are  concerned  in  the 
authorship  of  Henry  K///and  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  is  im- 
portant in  its  bearing  on  the  investigation  of  Fletcher's  influ- 
ence on  Shakspere.  We  shall  consider,  therefore,  the  dates, 
the  authorship  and  the  possible  collaboration  in  these  plays. 
Their  discussion,  together  with  that  of  the  lost  Cardenio,  also 
attributed  to  Fletcher  and  Shakspere,  will  be  included  for  con- 
venience in  the  first  main  division  of  the  investigation,  that  of 
the  chronology  of  the  plays.  Pericles  is  often  spoken  of  as  a 
precursor  of  Shakspere's  romances  and  must  therefore  receive 
>at  least  brief  consideration.  This  will  be  postponed  to  the 
appendix. 

Inasmuch  as  in  investigating  the  chronology  of  the  Beau- 
mont-Fletcher plays  I  shall  take  Mr.  Fleay's  conclusions  as  a 
basis,  some  of  his  theories  must  first  be  considered,  and  with 
them  some  matters  of  the  stage  history  of  the  period  and  some 
general  methods  used  in  the  subsequent  investigation.  As 
this  introduction  to  the  Beaumont-  Fletcher  chronology  also, 
in  some  details,  affects  the  Shakspere  chronology,  it  will 
precede  the  latter  as  well  as  the  former. 

An  examination  of  the  plays  acted  in  the  eight  or  ten  years 
preceding  the  romances  will  also  be  necessary  in  order  to  deter- 
mine to  what  extent  they  were  innovations  on  contemporary 
practice. 

In  discussing  the  characteristics  of  the  romances  of  Beau- 

mont and  Fletcher  and   their  influence   on    Shakspere's   we 

^should  naturally   expect  to  find  in   Cymbeline,   probably  the 

earliest  of  the  latter,  more  distinct  traces  of  the  influence  of 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher  than  in  the    Winter  's   Tale  and  the 

Tempest  ;    for  in  these  later  plays  Shakspere,  once  accustomed 

to  the  new  style  of  drama,  would  more  completely  transform 

^it.     I   shall,  therefore,   consider  separately   the  influence   of 

Philaster  on  Cymbeline,  and  in  still  another  chapter  discuss 

the  Winter's  Tale  and  the  Tempest. 

My  investigation,  therefore,  will  be  presented  in  the  follow- 
ing somewhat  arbitrary  order. 


i  .     Introduction  to  the  chronology  of  the  plays  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  and  the  stage  history  of  1605-1615. 


2.  Chronology  of  Shakspere's  three  romances. 

3.  Chronology  and  discussion  of  Henry  VIII,  the  Two  Noble 
Kinsmen ,  and  Cardenio. 

4.  Chronology  of  the  plays  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

(II.) 

5.  The  drama  1601-1610. 

6.  General  characteristics  of  the  romances  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher. 

7.  General  characteristics  of  SHakspere's  romances. 

8.  Cymbeline  and  Philaster. 

9.  A  Winter1 's  Tale  and  the  Tempest. 
10.     (Appendix).     Pericles. 

In  spite  of  the  somewhat  wide  latitude  of  the  investigation, 
its  two  main  objects  must  not  be  lost  sight  of:  (i)  to  show  that 
so  far  as  dates  and  facts  of  stage  history  are  concerned,  it  is 
entirely  possible  that  the  Beaumont- Fletcher  romances  may 
have  influenced  Shakspere,  and  (2)  to  show  a  probability  that 
they  did  definitely  influence  his  romances. 


CHAPTER  II. 
INTRODUCTION  TO  CHRONOLOGY  AND  STAGE  HISTORY. 

Before  attempting  to  fix  the  dates  of  the  plays  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher,  it  is  necessary  to  understand  the  few  facts  known 
of  their  lives  and  reputations  as  dramatists  and  to  discuss  a 
few  important  features  of  the  stage  history  of  the  time.  In 
discussing  the  separate  plays,  I  shall  take  as  a  basis  the  con- 
clusions of  Mr.  Fleay  in  his  Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama] 
and  these  conclusions  rest  so  often  on  his  special  theories  in 
regard  to  the  general  stage  history  that,  in  order  even  to  under- 
stand his  dates  for  the  plays,  those  theories  must  be  carefully 
examined. 

A  .     Biographies. 

Francis  Beaumont,  third  son  of  Judge  Beaumont  of  Grace 
Dieu  in  Leicestershire,  was  born  about  1585  and  died  March 
6,  1616.  He  was  admitted  gentleman  commoner  at  Broadgates 
Hall,  Oxford,  in  1597,  and  was  entered  at  the  Inner  Temple, 
London,  Nov.  3,  1600.  Salamis  and  Hermaphrodite,  1602,  may 
possibly  have  been  written  by  him.  He  was  married,  possibly 
about  I6I3,1  and  left  two  daughters  (one,  a  posthumous  child). 
He  was  buried  in  Westminster  Abbey. 

John  Fletcher,  son  of  Richard  Fletcher,  Bishop  of  Bristol, 
was  baptized  at  Rye  in  Sussex,  where  his  father  was  then 
minister,  Dec.  20,  1579,  and  died  of  the  plague  Aug.  25,  1625. 
He  was  entered  as  a  pensioner  at  Bene't  College,  Cambridge, 


. 

It  is  not  known  just  when  Fletcher  came  to  London  or  when 
he  began  writing  plays  or  when  he  first  became  acquainted  with 
Beaumont.  Davenant  in  a  prologue  to  the  Woman  Hater  at  a 
revival,  evidently  alluding  to  Fletcher,  declares  that  ''full 
twenty  years  he  wore  the  bays:  "  this  would  place  the  begin- 
ning of  his  play-  writing  1604-5.  ^n  J6o7,  both  he  and  Beau- 
mont prefixed  verses  to  Volpone  (acted  1605.)  Beaumont  ad- 
dresses Jonson  as  "  my  dear  friend,"  praises  him  for  teaching 

our  tongue  the  rules  of  time,  of  place,  '  '  and  shows  a  character- 
istic scorn  of  the  audiences  of  the  day.  Fletcher  also  classes 
himself  among  Jonson'  s  friends  and  speaks  of  the  latter's  foes. 
In  1607,  then,  they  were  well  acquainted  with  Jonson  and 

1  Fleay:  Chr.  I,  p.  170. 


probably  with  each  other.  Beaumont  wrote  commendatory 
verse  for  Epiccene  (1609)  and  both  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  for 
Catiline  (1611).  Beaumont  also  wrote  commendatory  verses, 
together  with  Jonson,  Chapman,  and  Field  for  Fletcher's  Faith- 
<ful  Shepherdess  (4to  1609?)  The  Woman  Hater,  probably  by 
Beaumont  alone,  was  published  anonymously,  1607.  Beau- 
mont's oft-quoted  epistle  to  Jonson,  is  entitled  in  the  1679  folio, 
' '  written  before  he  and  Master  Fletcher  came  to  London  with 
two  of  the  precedent  comedies,  then  not  finished,  which  de- 
ferred their  merry  meetings  at  the  Mermaid."  The  reference 
in  the  letter  to  Sutcliffe's  wit  seems  to  refer  to  the  pamphlets 
produced  by  him  in  i6o6.2  In  1610,  Davies'  Scourge  of  Folly 
was  published,  containing  an  epigram  on  Philaster.  In  1612, 
in  the  address  to  the  reader,  prefixed  to  the  White  Devil? 
Webster  praises  ' l  the  no  less  worthy  composures  of  the  both 
worthily  excellent  Master  Beaumont  and  Master  Fletcher," 
ranking  them  on  equal  terms  with  such  scholars  and  ex- 
perienced dramatists  as  Chapman  and  Jonson,  and  apparently 
above  Shakspere,  Dekker,  and  Hey  wood.  Before  1612,  then, 
the  reputation  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  as  dramatists  must 
have  been  well  established. 

Beaumont,  in  addition  to  his  plays,  wrote  elegies  on  the  Lady 
Markham  who  died  in  1609,  the  Countess  of  Rutland  who  died 
in  1612,  and  Lady  Penelope  Clifton  who  died  in  1613.  He  also 
addressed  some  verses  to  the  Countess  of  Rutland,  and  in  1613 
wrote  a  masque  for  Lady  Elizabeth's  marriage,  which  was  per- 
formed with  great  splendor  by  the  gentlemen  of  the  Inner 
Temple  and  Gray's  Inn.  We  shall  find  no  direct  evidence  that 
he  wrote  anything  for  the  stage  during  the  last  four  years  of 
his  life.  At  the  same  time  there  is  no  positive  reason  to  believe 
that  he  stopped  play-writing  so  long  before  his  death. 

Beaumont  was  buried  in  Westminster  Abbey  close  by  Chaucer 
and  Spenser;  and  the  verses  on  Shakspere,  usually  attributed 
to  William  Basse,  bid 

"  Renowned  Spencer  lye  a  thought  more  nye 
To  learned  Chaucer,  and  rare  Beaumont  lye 
A  little  nearer  Spenser,  to  make  roome 
For  Shakespeare  in  your  threefold,  fowerfold  Tombe. 
To  lodge  all  fowre  in  one  bed  make  a  shift 
Until  Doomesdaye,  for  hardly  will  a  fift 
Betwixt  this  day  and  that  by  Fate  be  slayne, 
For  whom  your  curtaines  may  be  drawn  againe." 

There  is  no  doubt,  indeed,  that  Beaumont's  reputation  as  a 
poet  was  very  high  even  before  his  death.  The  commendatory 

1  Whether  there  is  any  evidence  for  the  connection   between  the 
epistle  and  "  two  of  the  precedent  comedies  "  is  a  matter  of  conjecture. 
*C/.,  Chr.  I  p.  170. 
3  Acted  before  1612,  perhaps  1607-8  (Fleay). 

10 


verses  prefixed  to  the  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  folio  of  1647 
show  that  then  they  were  probably  the  most  popular  of  the 
Elizabethan  dramatists.  How  high  their  literary  reputation 
was,  can  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  either  during  their  lives  or 
after  their  deaths,  their  praises  were  heralded  by  Jonson,  Chap- 
man, Webster,  Waller,  Denham,  L,ovelace,  Cartwright,  Her- 
rick,  Brome,  and  Shirley.  Perhaps  no  other  poet  of  the  Eliza- 
be  than  period — certainly  not  Shakspere — received  such  a  volume 
of  praise. 

B.      Connections  with   Theatrical  Companies. 

We  have  next  to  examine  some  of  Mr.  Fleay's  theories,  and 
from  the  examination  arrive  at  some  important  facts  of  the 
stage  history.  We  may  first  consider  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
connections  with  the  theatrical  companies. 

Some  of  the  Elizabethan  playwrights  were  actors  and  wrote 
for  the  companies  in  which  they  acted;  some  were  hackwriters 
whose  services  were  engaged  for  certain  periods  by  certain 
companies.  Some,  like  Shakspere,  wrote  for  one  company 
throughout  their  career;  some  changed  back  and  forth  at  fairly 
traceable  intervals  from  one  company  to  another.  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  were  neither  actors,  nor  managers,  nor  hack- 
writers; tliev  were  gentlemen  and  poets.  They  were  probably 
no  more  closely  attached  at  any  one  time  to  any  one  company 
than  a  dramatist  of  to-day  would  be  bound  to  one  manager,  or 
a  novelist  to  one  publisher.  Not  only  is  there  no  evidence  that 
their  services  were  subsidized  for  definite  periods  by  particular 
companies;  on  the  contrary  there  is  clear  evidence  that  they 
belonged  to  the  class  of  writers  who  were  independent  of  all 
such  theatrical  engagements. 

That  there  was  such  a  class  of  dramatists  may  be  clearly 
seen  from  a  cursory  examination  of  Ben  Jonson' s  dramatic 
career.  The  following  list  shows  his  career  up  to  I6I6,1  giving 
date,  play,  company,  and  theater. 

1597,  Dec.  3.        Henslow,  "a  book." 

1598,  Aug.  19.        Hot  Anger  soon  Cold*  Henslow,  Admirals.  Rose. 

(before8^.)  \    The  Case  is  Altered-  Chapel  Children. 

1598.  Every  Man  in  his  Humour.          I^ord  Chamberlain's.!        Curtain. 

1599.  Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour.  I^ord  Chamberlain's.          Globe. 

Aug-  lo^'ep  2    PaSe  of  Plymouth.  Henslow,  Admiral's.          Rose. 

1599.  Sep.  Robert  77,  King  of  Scots*  Henslow,  Admiral's.          Rose. 

1600.  Cynthia's  Revels.  Chapel  Children.  Blackfriars 

1601.  7 he  Poetaster.  Chapel  Children.  Blackfriars 

1601.  (?)  Fleay.    Tale  of  a  Tub.  Chapel  Children.  (?) 

Sep  as^Tune  24  The  Spanish  Tragedy,  Additions.  Henslow,  Admiral's.          Fortune. 

1602,  June  24.      Richard  Crookback.  Henslow,  Admiral's.  Fortune. 

*With  collaborators. 

t  Also  acted  by  another  company;  Fleay  thinks  before  1603  by  Chapel  Children. 

JThe  dates  can  be  verified  by  Henslow's  diary  and  Jonson's  1616 
folio. 

II 


1603.  Sejanus.  King's.  Globe. 

1604-5.  Eastward  Ho*  Queen's  Revels.  Blackfriars 

1605.  Volpone.  King's.  Globe, 

1609.  Eptcoene.  Queen's  Revels.  ? 

1610.  Alchemist.  King's.  Blackfriars 

1611.  Catiline.  King's.  Blackfriars 
1614.  Bartholemew  Fair.  Lady  Elizabeth's.  Hope. 
1616.  The  Devil  is  an  Ass.  King's.  Blackfriars 

*With  collaborators. 

It  is  absurd  to  say,  as  Mr.  Fleay  does,  that  Jonson  left  this 
company  and  went  to  that;  one  has  to  trace  twelve  such  changes 
for  twenty  plays.      "This  continual  change  of  company," 
which  Mr.  Fleay  says  is  peculiar  to  Jonson,  simply  indicates 
that  he  never  had  any  definite  connection  with  any  company. 

During  their  joint  career  as  dramatists,  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  are  as  '  peculiar '  as  Jonson  in  the  continual  changing 
of  company.  The  following  are  the  only  certain  dates  of  plays 
before  1616,  (Beaumont's  death)  and  they  show  how  impossi- 
ble it  is  to  arrange  the  plays  by  periods  in  which  the  authors 
were  writing  for  different  companies. 

1607.  Woman  Hater,  printed.  Paul's  Boys. 

Before  Oct.,  1610.  Philaster,  acted.  King's  Men. 

1612.  Coxcomb,  acted  at  court.  Rossiter's  Queen's  Revels 
1612-3.  Captain,  acted  at  court.  King's  Men. 

1612.  Cupid's  Revenge,  acted  at  court.  Queen's  Revels. 


In  or  before  1611.          Maid's  Tragedy,  acted.  King's  Men. 

1611.  A  King  and  No  King,  acted.  King's  Men. 

1613.  Honest  Man's  Fortune,  acted.  I/ady  Elizabeth's  Men. 

This  list  at  least  shows  the  difficulty  of  dividing  the  plays 
chronologically  into  groups  written  for  different  companies; 
yet  this  is  just  what  Mr.  Fleay  tries  to  do,  and  he  also  tries  to 
trace  the  changes  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  in  conjunction 
with  Jonson' s.  This  method  has  vitiated  his  entire  chronology. 
To  what  extent  it  rests  on  ill-founded  conjectures  and  neglect 
and  misstatement  of  facts,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  in 
other  places.  Here,  we  can  only  point  out  the  absurdity  of 
the  whole  proceeding. 

Up  to  about  September,  i6io,2  he  thinks  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  were  writing  for  the  Revels  children,  (Blackfriars 
Company  and  its  successor  at  Whitefriars) ;  and  so  all  the  plays 
acted  by  the  Revels  Company  are  crowded  into  the  years  before 
that  date.  Then  in  company  with  Jonson,3  he  thinks  they 
left  the  Revels  boys  for  the  King's  men,  where  they  took  the 
place  of  Shakspere.4  But  Shakspere's  Tempest,  according  to 
Mr.  Fleay 's  own  statement5  was  not  yet  produced,  and  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher's  PMasterwas  produced  some  time  before 
Oct.  8,  1 6 10.  Moreover,  Jonson' s  leaving  the  Revels  for  the 

*  Chr.  I,  p.  346. 

2  Except  the  Woman  Hater  for  Pauls  Boys.     For  date  see  Chr.  I,  p. 
188. 

3  Chr.  I,  p.  188,  Chr.  I,  p.  349. 

4  Chr.  I,  p.  370. 

5 Life  of  Shakspere,  p.  248. 

12 


King's  men  amounts  to  just  this;  from  1605  to  the  end  of  1610, 
he  wrote  one  play,  Epicoene,  (1609)  which  was  acted  by  the 
Revels  boys,  and  in  1610,  his  Alchemist 'was  acted  by  the  King's 
men.  Jonson  did  not  change  in  September,  1610,  neither  did 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

From  1 6 10  to  1613,  Mr.  Fleay  keeps  them  busy  writing  plays 
for  the  King's  men;  but  in  1613,  he  thinks  "Fletcher,  still 
following  Johnson,  now  left  the  King's  men"1  and  wrote 
1613-16  for  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  men.  In  1613,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  Jonson  was  in  France  with  Sir  Walter  Raleigh's  son, 
so  it  is  hard  to  see  in  what  way  Fletcher  followed  him.  The 
facts  are  simply  these:  Jonson' s  Catiline  was  acted  in  1611  by 
the  King's  men,  and  his  next  play  was  acted  three  years  later 
by  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  men.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  A 
King  and  No  King  was  acted  by  the  King's  men  in  1611,  and 
The  Honest  Man' s  Fortune,  in  which  Fletcher,  at  least,  had  a 
share,  was  acted  by  Lady  Elizabeth's  men  in  1613.  There 
are  no  other  plays  by  Fletcher  which  were  certainly  acted 
1613-16  by  Lady  Elizabeth's  men. 

Mr.  Fleay 's  method  of  arranging  the  plays  certainly  tends 
to  distort  the  facts  and  may  well  be  dispensed  with.  The  rela- 
tions between  the  dramatists  and  the  companies  do,  however, 
afford  some  assistance  in  determining  the  dates  of  plays. 
From  1619  and  perhaps  from  as  early  a  date  as  1616,  Fletcher 
seems  to  have  been  writing  only  for  the  King's  men;  at  least, 
so  many  of  his  plays  were  produced  by  that  company,  there 
is  small  likelihood  that  he  wrote  for  any  other.  Before  1616, 
there  is  no  definite  evidence  connecting  either  Beaumont  or 
Fletcher  for  fixed  periods  with  any  company.2  The  fact,  how- 
ever, that  one  of  their  plays  was  produced  by  a  given  company 
at  a  certain  date,  makes  it  somewhat  likely  that  other  plays 
were  produced  by  the  same  company  at  about  that  time.  If 
they  wrote  some  plays  for  the  Revels  boys  before  1611,  there 
is  a  consequent  likelihood  that  they  wrote  others.  If  none  of 
their  plays,  so  far  as  is  known,  were  presented  by  the  Queen's 
men,  there  is  a  strong  presumption  against  any  particular  play 
of  theirs  being  acted  by  the  Queen's  men.  There  is,  however, 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  different  plays  of  theirs  may  not 
have  been  given  first  presentations  by  different  companies  in 
the  same  year.  There  is  no  reason  why  they  may  not  have 
been  writing  in  the  same  year  one  play  particularly  suited 
to  one  of  the  companies  of  children  and  another  play  for  the 
King's  men. 

I  shall  therefore  attempt  to  determine  the  date  of  each  play 

1Chr.  I,  p.  195. 

2They  wrote  for  Paul's  boys,  Queen's  Revels,  Rossiter's  (Second 
Queen's)  Revels,  King's  men,  and  I^ady  Elizabeth's  men. 

13 


without  any  assistance  from  a  conjectural  division  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher's  dramatic  career  into  periods  marking  their  con- 
nection with  different  companies. 

C.      The  Plague  and  the  Closing  of  the   Theaters. 

"In  the  reigns  of  James  and  Charles,"  writes  Mr.  Fleay, 
1 '  the  plagues  were  so  frequent  that  the  theaters  were  often 
closed  in  consequence.  This  took -place  whenever  the  deaths 
from  plague  amounted  to  forty  per  week."  *  He  then  goes  on 
to  show  that  this  regulation  was  rigidly  enforced  because  from 
an  examination  of  Henslow's  diary  for  1593,  it  appears  that 
the  theater  was  closed  from  May  3  to  Dec.  27,  while  the  deaths 
exceeded  forty  a  week  from  April  28  to  Dec.  15.  He,  there- 
fore, concludes  that  the  theaters  were  closed  during  all  periods 
when  the  plague  deaths  per  week  were  above  forty ;  and  hence 
in  the  later  half  of  each  of  the  five  years  1 606-10  inclusive, 
from  about  July  i  to  the  last  of  November,  and  particularly, 
from  July  28  to  Dec.  22,  1608,  and  from  Dec.  26,  1608,  to  Nov. 
30,  1609. 

This  theory,  especially  in  respect  to  the  closing  of  the  thea- 
ters for  sixteen  months  in  1608-9,  is  °f  great  importance  in 
Mr.  Fleay's  chronology  of  plays.  It  is,  in  fact,  constantly 
leading  him  into  trouble.  He  is  obliged  to  assign  the  Scornful 
Lady,  Monsieur  Thomas,  and  any  other  plays  which  he  thinks 
date  1609,  to  the  small  part  of  December  which  would  remain 
after  the  announcement  had  been  made  that  the  deaths  were 
less  than  forty.  He  is  also  obliged  to  explain  the  acting  of 
Epicoene  in  i6o92  by  the  old  style  calender.  One  suspects,  in- 
deed, that  his  theory  that  the  theaters  closed  entirely  was  an 
offspring  of  his  theories  about  the  Blackfriars  House,  for  in 
his  Life  of  Shakspere 8  he  assigns  Cymbeline  to  the  autumn  of 
1609  and  merely  remarks,  "  this  being  a  plague  year,  there  was 
little  dramatic  activity." 

At  all  events,  considered  point  by  point,  his  theory  proves 
untenable.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  clear  just  what  the 
regulation  was  for  closing  the  theaters.  Mr.  Fleay  insists  that 
forty  is  the  correct  number  of  deaths,4  but  in  Middleton's  Your 
Five  Gallants*  the  following  passage  indicates  that  the  number 
was  thirty, — "  'tis  e'en  as  uncertain  as  playing,  now  up  and 
now  down;  for  if  the  bill  down  rise  to  above  thirty,  here 's  no 
place  for  players ."  Again  in  the  rough  draft  of  a  patent  for 


!H.  of  S.    p.  162. 

2  So  stated  in  quarto  and  folio  of  1616. 

8p.  162. 

4H.  of  S.  p.  191.     So  stated  in  Privy  Seal  to  King's  Men,  1619-20. 

6  Licensed  March  22,  1608. 

14 


the  Earl  of  Worcester's  men,  published  by  Collier,1  it  is  es- 
pecially provided  that  they  shall  play  ' '  when  the  infection  of 
the  plague  shall  decrease  to  the  number  of  thirty  within  our 
city  of  London."  Again  in  a  letter  printed  in  Winwood's 
Memorials?  thirty  a  week  is  referred  to  as  if  it  were  the 
limiting  number  of  deaths.  Finally,  in  none  of  the  eight 
patents  granted  to  companies  from  1603-1615,  except  in  the 
one  just  noted  is  there  any  reference  to  a  limiting  number. 
In  six3  there  is  no  allusion  whatever  to  the  plague;  and  in 
the  remaining  one  to  the  King's  men,4  they  are  to  act  "when 
the  infection  of  the  plague  shall  decrease. ' '  There  is  no  refer- 
ence to  the  forty  limit  until  the  Privy  Seal  to  the  King's  men 
in  1620. 5 

In  the  second  place  there  is  no  certainty  that  any  regulation 
prohibiting  theatrical  performances  during  the  plague  was 
rigidly  enforced.  Mr.  Fleay 's  conclusion  rests  on  the  closing 
of  Henslow's  theater  for  seven  months  during  a  year  when 
the  deaths  numbered  11,503;  but  because  a  theater  was  closed 
when  the  plague  was  so  prevalent,  it  clearly  does  not  follow 
that  any  regulation  was  strictly  enforced  fifteen  years  later 
when  the  deaths  were  averaging  about  twenty-five  hundred 
yearly.  A  passage  in  Middleton's  A  Mad  World  my  Masters* 
makes  it  certain  that  theaters  were  sometimes  closed  because 
of  the  plague,  but  also  makes  it  evident  that  the  players  de- 
cidedly objected  to  such  regulations.  When  fear  of  the  plague 
was  not  excessive,  it  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  regu- 
lations were  unenforced  or  evaded. 

1  Vol.  I,  p.  336.  Fleay  suspects,  to  be  sure,  that  this  draft  of  a  patent 
may  be  a  forgery,  but  one  of  the  chief  reasons  for  his  suspicion  is  that 
the  number  of  deaths  is  stated  at  thirty  instead  of  forty.  H  of  S.  p. 
140. 

2 Vol.  II,  p.  140.  "The  sudden  riseing  of  the  sickness  to  thirty  a 
"week  and  the  infesting  of  nineteen  parishes,  made  us  think  the  Term, 
"or  Parliament,  or  both,  might  be  prolonged  and  put  off,  but  the 
"  abating  of  some  few  this  week  makes  us  all  hold  on." 

Also  printed  Nichols  I,  562.     Dated  Oct.  12,  1605. 

3 Privy  Seal,  Jan.  30.  1604.  Her  Majesty's  Revels.  Collier  I,  340. 
Privy  Seal,  March  30,  1610.  Duke  of  York's.  Shak.  Soc.  Papers,  IV. 
47.  Privy  Seal,  April  15,  1609.  Queen's  Men.  Shak.  Soc.  Papers, 
IV.  44.  Privy  Seal,  April  30,  1607.  Prince's  Men.  Shak.  Soc.  Papers, 
IV,  42.  Privy  Seal,  Jan.  4,  1613.  Palsgrave's  Men.  Collier  I,  365. 
Privy  Seal,  May  30,  1615.  Philip  Rossiter  et  al.  English  Drama 
and  Stage,  p.  46.  Roxburgh  library  (1869). 

4  Patent,  May  17,  1603,  King's  Men.     Collier  I,  334.     This  patent  was 
granted  in  the  great  plague  year  of  1603,  when  the  deaths  were  over 
30,000. 

5  Patent,  March  27,  1620.     English  Drama  and  Stage.     Roxburgh 
Library,  1869,  p.  50. 

6 Quarto  1608;  acted  (Fleay)  1606;  "But  for  certain  players,  there 
"thou  liest,  boy,  they  were  never  more  uncertain  in  their  lives; 
"now  up,  and  now  down;  they  know  not  where  to  play,  or  what  to 
"  play,  nor  when  to  play  for  fearful  fools."  Act  V,  sc.  I. 

15 


In  the  third  place,  Mr.  Fleay's  table  of  the  periods  1606- 
1610  when  the  deaths  exceeded  forty  per  week,  is  open  to  sus- 
picion. I  have  not  been  able  to  examine  the  mortality  tables, 
but  it  seems  curious  that  the  deaths  were  less  than  forty  per 
week  for  a  period  Dec.  22  to  26,  1608.  At  any  rate,  for  five 
years  the  deaths  averaged  about  2,500  a  year,  and  in  1609,  the 
year  in  which  the  plague  was  severest,  they  were  only  a  little 
over  4,000.  This  plague  had  been  prevalent  since  the  great 
outbreak  of  1603;  and  one  would  hardly  suppose  it  sufficient 
to  close  the  theaters  entirely  during  sixteen  months  in  1608-9. 

There  is,  in  fact,  very  definite  evidence  that  it  did  not.  On 
the  5th  of  April,  1609,  J.  Hemings  was  paid  for  twelve  plays 
performed  at  court  by  the  King's  men  the  Christmas  before; 
and  on  the  same  date  there  was  a  payment  for  three  plays  by 
the  Prince's  men,  presumably  also  given  in  the  Christmas 
season  1608-9.  At  that  time,  according  to  Mr.  Fleay,  the 
theaters  had  been  closed  five  months,  and  we  have  to  suppose 
that  the  travelling  companies1  were  summoned  back  to  London 
to  play  at  court  during  the  plague.  A  more  likely  inference 
is  that  the  companies  were  playing  in  London  both  at  the  time 
of  the  court  performance  and  the  later  payment.  There  is, 
in  fact,  no  evidence  that  theaters,  pageants,  or  business  in 
general  were  to  any  extent  interrupted  b}'  the  plague  in  1608-9. 
The  Masque  of  Queens  was  performed  Feb.  2,  1609  before  the 
royal  family  at  Whitehall;  the  king  and  royal  family  visited 
the  Tower  June  23,  1609,  and  the  Bourse  (new  Exchange)  was 
dedicated  April  10,  1609.  Moreover,  in  April,  1609,  we  find 
a  patent  granted  to  the  Queen's  players  "  to  shewe  and  exer- 
cise publickly  as  well  within  their  nowe  usual  houses  called 
the  Redd  Bull,  etc."  2  Apparently  the  theaters  and  companies 
were  then  in  full  swing. 

Jonson's  Epiccene,  too,  was  certainly  acted  in  1609,  as  stated 
in  the  first  quarto  and  the  carefully  edited  folio  of  1616.  Mr. 
Fleay  assumes  that  Jonson  is  using  the  old  calendar  and  that 
1 609 may  include  Jan. -March  1610, hence  hedates  the playi6io,8 
because  he  thinks  the  theaters  were  closed  during  1609,  and 
because  he  sees  in  the  prologue  a  reference  to  the  Whitefriars 
theater  which  he  thinks  was  occupied  by  a  company  of  Revels 
boys  in  1610.  The  last  reason  is  one  of  Mr.  Fleay's  wildest, 
and  may  be  at  once  dismissed;  ' '  the  daughters  of  Whitefriars ' ' 


1  They  were  presumably  away  from  London,  unless  they  returned 
for  the  period  Dec.  22-Dec.  26,  when  Fleay  thinks  the  plague  deaths 
were  less  than  forty  a  week. 

2 Fleay  (Chr.  I,  31)  says  "they  did  not  play  until  December  on  ac- 
count of  the  plague." 

3  Chr.  I,  p.  374- 

16 


has  no  reference  to  the  theater.1  The  assumption  that  Jonson 
used  the  old  style  calendar,  beginning  the  year  March  26,  is 
equally  contrary  to  fact  but  has  some  value  as  a  typical  ex- 
ample of  Mr.  Fleay's  methods. 

In  fixing  the  date  of  Epicoene  in  1610,  he  remarks,  ' '  this  play 
like  the  Fox  and  other  plays,  has  hitherto  been  dated  a  year 
too  early,  in  consequence  of  the  use  of  the  old  style  dates."  - 
Nevertheless,  earlier  in  the  same  volume,  he  expressly  states: 
"Jonson  and  Chapman  begin  their  year  Jan.  i;  most  other 
writers  March  26."  3  Fortunately  we  have  the  means  for  de- 
termining which  of  these  two  contradictory  statements  is  true 
by  comparing  the  dates  given  in  the  quartos  and  folio  for  several 
of  the  masques  with  the  known  dates  of  their  presentation. 
The  following  table  will  make  it  perfectly  plain  that  in  dating 
his  productions  Jonson  began  the  year  with  January  first. 

Date  given  in  Quarto.  Date  given  in    New  style  date  of  Masque. 

1616  Folio.          Court  Perf'r'nce. 

1605  and  1608.  1605  and  1608.    Jan.   i,   1605,   and          Blackness. 

Jan..  1608. 

Jan.  6,  1606.  not  dated.          Jan.  6,  1606.  Hymen. 

1608.  1608.  Jan.  14,  1608.  Beauty. 

Quarto,  entered|S.  R.,Feb.  22,  1609.      Feb.  2,  1609.       Feb.  2,  1609.  Queens. 

1608.  Feb.,  1608.  Hue  and  Cry. 

after  Cupid. 

The  evidence4  (note  particularly  the  date  given  for  the 
Masque  of  Queens}  seems  to  be  conclusive  that  the  1 609  date 
given  in  the  Folio  for  Epicoene  means  from  Jan.  i  to  Dec.  31, 
1609. 

Finally,  then,  Mr.  Fleay's  deductions  from  his  theory  of 
the  closing  of  the  theaters  add  nothing  to  its  plausibility.  In 
addition  to  placing  Epicoene  in  1610,  he  places  the  Scornful 
Lady,  Ram  Alley, 5  Monsieur  Thomas,  and  quite  possibly  other 
plays  I  have  not  noticed,  in  December,  1609.  In  the  week 
ending  Nov.  30,  the  plague  deaths  exceeded  forty;  another 

^Epicoene.   Prologue.  .  .  "  Some  for  lords,  knights,  'squires  ; 
"  Some  for  your  waiting  wench,  and  city  wives, 
"  Some  for  your  men  and  daughters  of  Whitefriars." 
See,   also,    Volpone,  IV.  i.,   "Ay,  your  Whitefriars  nation."     Gifford 
explains  the  passage:     "Whitefriars  was  at  this  time  a  privileged 
spot  in  which  fraudulent  debtors,  gamblers,  prostitutes,  and  other 
outcasts  of  society  usually  resided."      See,  also,    The  Blacke  Booke 
4to  1604.     B.  8,  p.  30,  "drabs  in  Whitefriars"  and  Father  Hubbard's 
Tales,  Bk  8,  p.  78,""  Whitefriar's  nunnery,"  Bk  8,  p.  84,  "  Whitefriars, 
Pict. -hatch,  and  Turnball  Sheet." 

^Chr.  I,  p.  374. 

3Chr.  I,  p.  65,  foot-note. 

4  The  only  case  I  have  noted  in  which  the  folio  does  not  date  by  the 
new  style  is  in  that  portion  which  Mr.  Fleay  himself  says  was  not 
supervised  by  Jonson,  i.  e.,  which  is  without  marginal  notes  and 
whose  statements  are  less  correct.  There,  the  Golden  Age  Restored, 
acted  Jan.  i  and  6,  1616,  is  dated  1615. 

6  He  is  in  doubt  between  Dec.,  1609  and  1610. 

3  17 


week  must  have  elapsed  in  which  they  were  less  than  forty, 
and  at  least  a  few  days  more  according  to  his  theory  before 
the  companies  could  have  acted.1  He  supposes,  then,  that 
after  sixteen  months  of  idleness  or  absence  from  London,  the 
companies  at  once  began  playing  and  that  one  of  them,  the 
Queen's  Revels,  brought  out  two  new  plays  in  the  last  two 
weeks  of  December,  1609.  This  supposition  alone  is  enough 
to  throw  suspicion  on  his  theory. 

On  the  whole,  the  most  that  can  be  safely  asserted  is  that 
the  theaters  were  very  possibly  closed  during  the  summer  and 
autumn  months  of  1609-10,  when  the  plague  was  more  fatal 
than  common.  During  these  months  the  companies  probably 
spent  some  of  the  time  in  travelling.  There  is  positive 
evidence  that  the  theaters  were  not  closed  during  sixteen  or 
seventeen  months  1608-1609,  and  the  only  safe  assumption  is 
Mr.  Fleay's  earlier  one  that  theatrical  activity  may  have  been 
considerably  lessened  because  of  the  plague  in  1609. 

D.      The  Occupancy  of  Blackfriars  by  the  King' s  Men. 

Mr.  Fleay  dates  all  the  plays  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
acted  by  the  King's  men  later  than  the  fall  of  1610.  He  does 
this  because  he  thinks  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  then  left  the 
Revels  children  and  joined  the  King's  men,  and  because  he 
thinks  the  King's  men  had  then  just  begun  playing  in  Black- 
friars,  where  he  seems  to  imagine  all  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
plays  were  first  acted.  The  first  reason  we  have  already 
found  to  be  groundless ;  the  second  is  of  enough  importance 
in  Mr.  Fleay's  chronology  to  require  special  attention. 

The  date  of  the  occupancy  of  Blackfriars  by  the  King's 
men,  he  reaches  by  a  curious  process.  The  Black  friar  Share 
Papers,  first  published  by  Mr.  Halliwell-Phillipps  in  his  Out- 
lines of  the  Life  of  Shakespeare,  proved  that  Burbadge  took 
back  the  lease  of  Blackfriars  from  Evans  (given  in  1600)  and 
established  a  men's  company  there  instead  of  the  boys,  taking 
Underwood  and  Ostler2  from  the  boys'  company  into  the 
King's  men.  Mr.  Halliwell-Phillipps  stated  the  date  of  the 
change  to  be  December,  i6o9.8  Thereupon,  Mr.  Fleay  in  his 
Life  of  Shakespeare*  took  Mr.  Halliwell-Phillipps  to  task  for 
merely  guessing.  Mr.  Fleay  declared  that  Burbadge  bought 
the  remainder  of  the  lease  probably  on  Lady's  Day,  1610  and 
then  took  possession  of  the  building.  Then  Mr.  Green- 

xMr.  Fleay  seems  to  think  the  theaters  were  opened  before  any 
announcement  was  made  or  the  deaths  were  less  than  forty  a  week, 
for  he  speaks  of  the  re-opening  of  the  theaters  Dec.  i.  Chr.  1,31. 

2 Field's  name  is  also  mentioned,  but  this  seems  surely  a  misstate- 
ment.  He  does  not  appear  with  the  King's  men  until  about  1616. 

3  Outlines,  p.  150. 

4  p.  164. 

18 


street's  discovery  of  the  papers  of  the  Kirkham-Burbadge 
case,  proved  that  Burbadge  actually  bought  back  the  lease  in 
August,  1608.  Mr.  Fleay,  however,  clung  to  as  much  of  his 
former  theory  as  he  possibly  could.  The  King's  men  did  not 
take  possession,  he  affirmed  in  his  History  oj~~thr~  Stage, l  until 
December  24,  1609.  He  seems  to  have  finally  arrived  at  Mr. 
Haliiwell-Jr'hillips'  earlier  guess. 

Now,  this  date,  December  24,  1609,  involves  the  following 
improbable  theory  :  Although  Burbadge  bought  back  the 
lease  in  August,  1608,  the  theater  was  closed  by  the  plague 
until  Nov.  30,  1609 ;  just  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  deaths 
were  less  than  forty  a  week  (Dec.  i  to  7),  the  company  which 
had  occupied  the  theater  before  1608,  the  Queen's  Revels 
children,  began  playing  again  in  Blackfriars;  on  December 
24,  they  gave  it  up  to  Burbadge  and  the  King's  men.  Mr. 
Fleay 's  support  for  this  theory  is  three-fold  :  (i)  the  Scorn- 
ful Lady  wras  acted  at  Blackfriars  in  1609,  by  the  Queen's 
Revels;  (2)  a  new  company  of  boys,  a  successor  of  the  old 
Queen's  Revels,  was  formed  by  Rossiter  in  January,  1610, 
and  the  first  Revels  did  not  leave  Blackfriars  until  then;  (3) 
the  plague  closed  all  the  theaters  from  July  28,  1608,  to  Nov. 
30,  1609. 

These  supports  are  all  conjectural  and  groundless.  The  first 
we  have  already  seen  to  be  improbable,  as  will  appear  more 
conclusively  in  our  discussion  of  the  Scornful  Lady.  The  sec- 
ond has  no  ground,  for  the  Revels  company  was  certainty  on 
the  verge  of  dissolution  in  1608,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  be 
sure  that  it  kept  together  until  Rossi ter's  company  was  formed. 
Further,  the  Revels  children  might  conceivably  have  left 
Blackfriars  some  time  before  they  joined  Rossiter's  company, 
or  they  might  have  shared  the  Blackfriars  for  a  while  with  the 
King's  men,  as  Collier  suggested.2  At  any  rate,  the  Revels 
company  in  a  disbanded  state  wouldn't  have  been  very  likely 
to  occupy  Burbadge' s  theater  to  the  exclusion  of  the  King's 
men.  The  third  conjecture,  in  regard  to  the  plague,  has 
already  been  shown  to  be  without  foundation. 

So  much  for  Mr.  Flea3^'s  theory.  The  facts  are  clear  enough. 
Just  what  became  of  the  remnant  of  Queen's  Revels  from  1608- 
1 6 10  is,  indeed,  open  to  conjecture,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt 
about  the  King's  men.  Evans  sold  back  his  lease  to  Burbadge 
in  August,  1608.  The  reasons  for  the  transfer  are  stated  to 
have  been  legal  inhibitions  and  financial  difficulties.  Burbadge 
placed  men  players  in  Blackfriars  ;  but  before  doing  so,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  his  children,8  he  took  Ostler  and  Under- 

1  p.  200.     et  passim. 

2  Vol.  I,  p.  360.    Mr.  Fleay  also  states  that  two  companies  niay  have 
sometimes  shared  the  same  theatre.     Life  Shaks.,  p.  164. 

3  Blackfriars  Share  Papers.     H.  P.  Outlines,  V.  I,  p.  286-293. 

19 


wood  into  the  King's  men.  The  King's  men  probably  occupied 
Blackfriars  from  1608  on,  as  is  indicated  by  the  statement  of  John 
Hemings  in  a  legal  paper,  dated  Nov.  5,  1612,  who  declares  that 
for  four  years  past  he  had  received  (as  a  partner  of  Burbadge) 
a  share  in  the  profits  of  the  Blackfriars  house,  /.  e.,  since  the 
surrender  of  the  lease  by  Evans.1  There  is  nothing,  moreover, 
to  oppose  the  natural  conclusion  that  the  King's  men  took  pos- 
session of  Blackfriars  very  soon  after  August,  1608. 

E.      The  Revels  Companies. 

We  have  already  examined  Mr.  Fleay's  theory  of  the  career 
of  the  Queen's  Revels  in  so  far  as  it  was  affected  by  the  plague 
years  and  the  closing  of  Blackfriars.  His  further  discussion  of 
this  and  the  other  Revels  companies  seems  to  me  inadequate  ; 
but  since  it  does  not  affect  the  dates  of  any  of  the  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  plays,  I  shall  merely  note  the  conclusions  reached 
in  my  investigations  without  discussing  the  changes  of  the  com- 
panies in  detail. 

On  the  whole  the  most  reasonable  chronology  is  that  in  1605, 
after  their  difficulty  over  Eastward  Ho,  the  Queen's  Revels 
boys  ceased  for  a  time  to  use  that  name  but  continued  in  Black- 
friars until  August,  1608,  when  the  company  was  broken  up 
and  the  lease  resold  to  Burbadge.  The  King's  Revels  appear 
as  early  as  1607  (when  the  Paul's  boys  disbanded),  and  not 
later  than  1610  ;  they  employed  some  of  the  poets  and  possibly 
some  of  the  actors  of  the  Queen's  Revels.  Possibly  the  Queen's 
Revels  kept  up  some  sort  of  an  organization  from  1608  to  1610, 
but,  surely,  in  1610  the  name  was  associated  with  a  new  com- 
pany of  children,  including  some  from  both  the  King's  and  the 
Queen's  Revels,  which  was  managed  by  Rossi ter  and  acted  at 
Whitefriars.  This  chronology  is  not  without  difficulties,  and 
cannot  be  relied  upon  with  certainty  in  establishing  dates  of 
plays.  We  have  not  enough  evidence  to  trace  out  in  detail  the 
history  of  the  Revels  Companies  from  1604-1613,  but  the  im- 
portant facts  are  certain.  In  1608  the  first  Queen's  Revels 
disbanded,  and  in  1610  a  new  company  of  Queen's  Revels  was 
established. 

F.     Shakspere  with  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  writing  for  the 
King' s  Men. 

Still  another  theory  of  Mr.  Fleay's  requires  especial  examin- 
ation. He  asserts  that  Shakspere  gave  up  writing  for  the 
King's  men  in  the  autumn  of  i6io,2  and  that  Jonson,  Beau- 

1  Greenstreet  Papers.    H.  of  S.,  p.  238.   The  joint  and  several  answers 
of  John  Hemings  and  Richard  Burbadge,  etc. 
2Chr.  I,  p.  170. 

20 


mont,  and  Fletcher  succeeded  him  about  September.  Mr. 
Fleay  thinks  that  before  this  date  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  wrote 
for  the  Queen's  Revels  at  Blackfriars,  until  December,  1609, 
and  for  Rossiter's  new  company  at  Whitefriars  in  1610.  We 
have  seen  how  little  basis  there  is  for  any  theory  that  traces 
the  careers  of  these  dramatists  by  their  connections  with  com- 
panies. In  regard  to  Shakspere  there  is  no  evidence,  whatever, 
that  he  left  writing  in  the  fall  of  1610.  There  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, important  evidence,  as  we  shall  see  later,  that  he  wrote 
for  the  King's  men  even  until  I6I3.1 

Mr.  Fleay 's  theory,  however,  can  be  disproved  without  going 
outside  of  his  own  discussions.  He  fixes  the  date  of  the  Temp- 
est? as  do  most  critics,  after  Jourdain's  narrative,  published 
October  13,  1610  ;  so  Shakspere  was,  according  to  Mr.  Fleay 's 
own  account,  writing  for  the  King's  men  after  that  date.  In 
Davies'  Scourge  of  Folly  (entered  S.  R.,  October  8,  1610)  there 
is  an  epigram  on  Philaster?  This  play,  in  the  first  quarto,  is 
stated  to  have  been  "  acted  at  the  Globe  by  his  Majesty's  Ser-  x 
vants  ;"  therefore  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  certainly  writ- 
ing for  the  King's  men  before  Shakspere  stopped  writing  for 
that  company. 

In  addition  to  the  evidence  of  the  date  of  the  Tempest,  we 
may  note  that  the  evidence  of  the  date  of  the  Winter3  s  Tale, 
and  the  opinion  of  his  most  competent  biographers  agree  in 
placing  Shakspere' s  withdrawal  from  dramatic  writing  later  than 
the  latest  possible  date  for  Philaster. 

To  show  how  these  theories  of  Mr.  Fleay 's  have  vitiated  his 
results,  it  will  be  enough  to  state  that,  owing  to  his  conjectures 
that  the  King's  men  did  not  occupy  the  Blackfriars  house  until 
December,  1609,  and  that  the  plague  closed  all  the  theaters  for 
seventeen  months,  and  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  did  not 
join  the  King's  men  until  the  autumn  of  1610,  he  has  placed 
the  first  productions  of  six  of  their  best  plays  in  the  ten  months 
from  December,  1609,  to  September,  1610.  He  places  the  Scorn- 
ful Lady  and  Monsieur  Thomas  at  the  Blackfriars  in  1609,  the 
Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  the  Coxcomb,  and  Ciipid*  s  Re- 
venge at  the  Whitefriars  in  1610  ;  and  Philaster  at  the  Black- 
friars by  the  King's  men  before  Oct.  8.  1610.  Without  con- 
sieferrflg^he  evidence  for  the  date  of  each  play,  the  production 
of  these  six  plays  in  ten  months  is  improbable.  According  to 
Mr.  Fleay,  Beaumont  wrote  almost  the  whole  of  two  of  these 
and  a  large  share  in  three  others,  which  is  a  very  large  propor- 
tion of  his  life's  work  to  assign  to  so  short  a  period  ;  besides, 

1  See  discussion  of  Henry  VIII  and  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  Chapter 
IV. 

2  Life  of  Sh.,  pp.  248-9. 

8  Correctly  stated  by  Fleay.     Chr.  II,  189. 

21 


the  six  plays  show  wide  differences  in  style   and   dramatic 
methods. 

Leaving  Mr.  Fleay's  theories,  we  may  again  repeat  the  im- 
portant facts.  In  August,  1608,  Burbadge  took  back  his  lease 
of  Blackfriars.  During  1609  the  plague  was  more  severe  than 
usual.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  certainly  writing  for  the 
King's  men  before  Shakspere  left  the  company. 

G.     Evidence  of  Folios,   Quartos^  and   Verse-tests. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  remarks  on  stage-history,  there 
are  some  general  considerations  in  respect  to  the  evidence  of 
folios  and  quartos  and  of  verse-tests  which  may  best  be  stated 
now.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  like  Shakspere,  took  no  care 
about  publishing  their  plays.  Only  four  were  printed  before 
Beaumont's  death  in  1616,  and  his  name  appears  on  none  of 
these.  Fletcher's  name  appears  on  only  the  Faithful  Shepherd- 
ess and  Cupid1  s  Revenge.  In  general,  their  plays  seem  to  have 
held  the  stage  and  to  have  been  kept  from  the  printers;  at  any 
rate,  only  fourteen  plays  were  published  in  quartos  before  the 
folio  of  1647,  which  contained  thirty-six  plays  never  before 
published.  These  were  all  assigned  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher; 
but  Beaumont  certainly  had  no  share  in  many  of  them,  Fletcher 
probably  had  no  share  in  a  few,  while  Massinger  certainly  had 
a  large  share  in  many,  and  other  dramatists  in  a  few.  The 
evidence  of  both  quartos  and  folio  on  the  question  of  author- 
ship is  nearly  valueless. 

In  the  second  folio  of  1679,  the  plays  previously  published 
in  quarto  were  added  to  those  of  the  first  folio;  and  to  these 
latter,  lists  of  the  chief  actors  were  in  many  cases  supplied. 
These  lists  were  added  to  all  the  plays  of  the  first  folio  certainly 
acted  by  the  King's  men  and  to  three  others,  and  are  an  im- 
portant aid  in  determining  the  dates  of  those  plays.  Seven 
lists  have  Burbadge  at  the  head,  so  the  plays  must  have  been 
acted  before  his  death  in  1619;  and  the  remaining  plays  by  the 
King's  men  without  Burbadge' s  name  date  pretty  certainly 
after  1618.  The  presence  or  absence  of  other  actors  on  these 
lists  helps  to  fix  their  dates  more  exactly. 

From  1622  on,  we  also  have  the  dates  of  licensing  given  in 
Herbert's  office  book.  A  number  of  plays,  however,  have 
neither  actors'  lists  nor  are  on  Herbert's  books.  The  presump- 
tion, therefore,  is  that  they  were  not  acted  by  the  King's  men 
and  that  they  date  before  1622;  or — since  the  time  1618-1622  is 
well  filled  with  plays  by  the  King's  men — probably  before  1618. 

A  further  means  of  fixing  the  dates  of  these  plays  is  that  of 
verse-tests,  used  primarily  to  determine  the  authorship  of  the 
plays.  These  have  been  applied  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 

22 


plays  by1  Fleay,  Macaulay,  Boyle,  and  Oliphant,  to  whose 
work  I  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  refer.  Beaumont  seems 
to  have  stopped  writing  for  the  stage  161 1-12,  at  least,  no  plays 
in  which  he  certainly  had  a  share  date  later  than  that;  so  if 
the  critics  agree  in  giving  Beaumont  a  share  in  a  play,  the  date 
is  presumably  before  1612,  and  certainly  before  1616.  The 
trouble  is  they  don't  agree;  still,  including  disputed  cases,  there 
are  only  some  fifteen  plays  which  Mr.  Fleay,  or  Mr.  Macaulay, 
or  Mr.  Boyle  assigns  to  Beaumont.  Mr.  Oliphant,  however, 
thinks  that  a  great  number  of  the  plays  of  uncertain  date  were 
first  written  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  or  by  one  of  them  alone, 
and  later  revised  by  other  authors. 

The  reasons  which  lead  him  to  such  a  conclusion  may  be 
briefly  summarized.  ( i )  If  a  play  is  not  on  Herbert's  licensing 
books,  it  was  originally  produced  before  1622,  and  probably, 
as  noted  above,  before  1618.  (2)  Many  of  these  plays  accord- 
ing to  all  investigators,  show  signs  of  revision  by  other  authors 
than  Beaumont  or  Fletcher.  (3)  If  written  within  a  few  years 
before  1622,  it  is  odd  that  they  should  be  revised  shortly  after 
Fletcher's  death  in  1625.  There  is  a  probability,  therefore, 
tliat  they  were  early  plays;  and  in  addition  to  these  general 
considerations,  (4)  he  finds  in  some  specific  indications  of 
Beaumont's  authorship.  In  this  way  he  places  before  1612 
some  twelve  plays  in  addition  to  those  so  dated  by  Mr.  Fleay. 
This  obliges  him  to  date  the  beginning  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  writing  for  the  stage  as  early  as  1604;  a  reference 
to  the  known  facts  of  their  lives  will  show  that  this  date  is 
probable  enough. 

Mr.  Oliphant' s  general  reasoning  is  plausible,  but  his 
attempts  to  separate  the  work  of  two  original  authors  and 
two  revisers  with  their  various  permutations,  are,  from  their 
nature,  not  of  a  sort  to  excite  unlimited  faith.  Unless  there 
is  direct  corroborating  evidence  of  an  early  date,  his  conclu- 
sions in  respect  to  a  play  must  clearly  be  viewed  with  the 
utmost  caution.  At  the  same  time,  there  is  no  doubt  that  a 
number  of  these  plays  were  revised;  and,  a  priori,  there  is 
almost  a  probability  that  some  in  their  present  form  may  be 
revisions  of  early  plays. 

In   general,   I  shall  avoid  questions  of  authorship  except 

1 F.  G.  Fleay  :  Transactions  New  Shakespeare  Society  >  1874.  Chron- 
icle of  the  English  Drama,  1891. 

G.  C.  Macaulay:     Francis  Beaumont,  a  critical  study,  1883,  London. 

R.  Boyle :     Englische  Studien,  V,  VII,  VIII,  IX,  X— 1881-2— 1886. 

Transactions  New  Shakespeare  Society,  1886. 

B.  F.  Oliphant :     Englische  Studien,  XIV,  XV,  XVI,  1890-92. 

In  referring  to  these  I  shall  use  simply  the  author's  name  unless 
special  reference  is  necessary. 

A.  H.  Bullen  in  the  article  on  Fletcher  in  the  Diet,  of  Nat.  Biog. 
has  also  discussed  the  authorship  of  the  plays. 

23 


when  they  directly  affect  the  date;  but  as  a  number  of  such 
cases  occur,  a  word  may  be  added  here  on  the  subject. 
Fletcher's  style  is  so  clearly  distinguishable  that  any  one  who 
has  read  him  carefully  may  recognize  it  with  some  degree  of 
certainty.  Nevertheless,  his  Faithful  Shepherdess^  is  written 
in  a  very  different  style  and  suggests  that  Fletcher  may 
have  varied  his  versification  in  other  plays.  Of  Fletcher's 
work,  however,  we  may  generally  be  sure;  Massinger's  style, 
though  by  no  means  as  distinctive  as  Fletcher's,  is  somewhat 
readily  distinguished  by  verse-tests  from  either  Fletcher's  or 
Beaumont's.  Beaumont's  versification  rests  on  a  somewhat 
doubtful  canon;  when  a  play  is  known  to  be  by  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher,  the  part  not  in  Fletcher's  recognized  manner  is 
accredited  to  Beaumont.  This  separation  was  accomplished, 
however,  with  great  skill  by  Mr.  Macaulay2' and  has  been 
substantiated  in  the  main  by  other  critics.  When  a  play  is 
probably  too  late  for  Beaumont,  the  part  neither  in  Massin- 
ger's nor  in  Fletcher's  style  goes  begging.  Field  seems  to  be 
the  favorite,  but  the  verse-tests  show  little  difference  between 
his  work  and  Beaumont's.  Mr.  Fleay  seems  confident  that 
he  can  tell  the  difference,  but  he  observes  :  "  Mr.  Boyle  is,  as 
I  have  frequently  pointed  out,  incapable  of  distinguishing 
Field's  work  from  Beaumont's."  Mr.  Oliphant  frankly  con- 
fesses that  the  distinction  between  Field  and  Beaumont  is  one 
of  the  critic's  most  difficult  tasks.  He  excepts  the  determina- 
tion of  the  authorship  of  prose  passages,  and  here  the  basis 
of  analysis  seems  to  be  individual  opinion  rather  than 
scientific  demonstration. 

H.     The  "  'em-them"  test. 

I  venture  to  offer  a  new  test  which  I. think  may  be  of  serv- 
ice in  testing  the  analysis  already  made  by  critics.  Slight 
though  it  may  seem,  it  certainly  has  the  merit  of  definiteness. 
It  is  simply  an  author's  use  of  '  them  '  and  '  'em.'  Every  one 
who  has  read  many  of  Fletcher's  plays  must  have  noticed  the 
great  frequency  with  which  he  uses  '  'em  '  instead  of  '  them  '- 
'kill  'em,'  'with  'em,'  etc.  This  fact  led  me  to  count  the 
'  thems  '  and  '  'ems  '  in  Henry  VIII  and  the  Two  Noble  Kins- 
men with  a  view  of  testing  the  generally  accredited  divisions  of 
those  plays  between  Fletcher  and  Shakspere.  The  results  given 

1  Mr.  Fleay  has  no  doubt  that  Beaumont  had  a  share  in  this,  Chr.  I, 
p.  178,  but  the  external  evidence  is  strong  to  the  contrary. 

2  Of   the   other   critics,  it    may  be   noted  that    Mr.    Fleay,  after  his 
usual   fashion,    gives   his    conclusions  and  ingeniously  conceals  his 
reasons.     Mr.  Boyle  and  Mr.  Oliphant  are  scientific  in  their  methods, 
but  Mr.  Boyle  is  a  bit  over-fond  of  discovering  Massinger,  and   Mr. 
Oliphant  often  carries  his  analysis  of  revised  plays  beyond  the  limits 
of  plausibility. 

3  Chr.  I,  206. 

24 


in  another  place  are  rather  surprising.  A  little  more  counting 
showed  that  the  preference  for  either  '  them '  or  '  'em  '  is,  so  far 
as  it  goes,  a  fair  indication  of  authorship. 

Thus  Fletcher,  in  the  Woman' s  Prize1  uses  sixty  'ems  to  four 
thems  ;  in  Bonduca?  eighty-three  'ems  to  six  thems  ;  in  the  two 
last  plays  of  Four  Plays  in  One*  fifteen  'ems  to  one  them. 

These  plays,  as  all  others  mentioned  here,  were  selected 
purely  at  random,  and  probably  indicate  fairly  Fletcher's  de- 
cided preference  for  ''em.'4  Moreover,  he  seems  to  have  a 
special  fondness  for  bunching  several  'ems  in  a  few  lines,  as  : 

"  Bring  'em  in, 
Tie  'em  and  then  unarm  'em."5 

"  Now  look  upon  'em,  son  of  Barth,  and  shame  'em ; 
Now  see  the  faces  of  thy  evil  angels ; 
Lead  'em  to  Time,  and  let  'em  fill  his  triumph  !"6 

"  Caesar's  soft  soul  dwells  in  'em, 
Their  mother  got  'em  sleeping.    Pleasure  nursed  'em  !"7 

Shakspere  differs  very  noticeably  from  Fletcher,  and  uses  'em 
only  sparingly.  In  Cymbeline*  there  are  sixty-four  '  thems '  and 

1  Woman's  Prize,  I,  i,  o  them,  2  'ems;  I,  2,  i  them,  3  'ems;  I,  3,  2 
thems,  10  'ems ;  I,  4,  o  them,  i  'em  ;  II,  i,  o  them,  3  'ems  ;  II,  2,  o  them, 
i  'em ;  II,  3,  o  them,  o  'em ;  II,  4,  o  them,  i  'em ;  II,  5,  o  them,  7  'ems  ; 
II,  6,  o  them,  9  'ems  ;  III,  i,  o  them,  3  'ems  ;  III,  2,  o  them,  3  'ems  ;  III, 
3,  o  them,  o  'em ;  III,  4,  o  them,  4  'ems ;  IV,  i,  i  them,  3  'ems ;  IV,  2, 
o  them,  o  'em  ;  IV,  3,  o  them,  i  'em;  IV,  4,  o  them,  i  'em;  IV,  5,  o 
them,  o  'em  ;  V,  i,  o  them,  5  'ems ;  V,  2,  o  them,  2  'ems ;  V,  3,  o  them, 
o  'em ;  V,  4,  o  them,  i  'em.  Total,  4  thems,  60  'ems. 

2Bonduca,  I,  i,  10  'ems,  o  them;  I,  2,  8  'ems,  i  them;  II,  i,  4  'ems, 
o  them;  II,  2,  i  'em,  o  them;  II,  3,  17  'ems,  o  them;  II,  4,  5  'ems,  i 
them;  III,  i,  4  'ems,  i  them;  III,  2,  i  'em,  o  them;  III,  3,  5  'ems,  o 
them  ;  III,  4,  o  'em,  o  them  ;  III,  5,  13  'enis,  i  them ;  IV,  i,  o  'em,  i 
them  ;  IV,  2,  i  'em,  i  them ;  IV,  3,  4  'ems,  o  them ;  IV,  4,  i  'em,  o 
them  ;  V,  i,  2  'ems,  o  them  ;  V,  2,  2  'ems,  o  them  ;  V,  3,  5  'ems,  o  them. 
Total,  83  'ems,  6  thems. 

3 Triumph  of  Death,  10  'ems,  o  them. 

Triumph  of  Time,  5  'ems,  i  them. 

Fletcher's  Share  in  Four  Plays,  15  'ems,  i  them. 

4  '  Them,'  however,  is  used  in  the  Faithful  Shepherdess;  but  that  play, 
if  Fletcher's,  seems  to  be  an  exception  to  every  rule  that  can  be  deter- 
mined for  him. 

5 Bonduca,  III,  5. 

6  Triumph  of  Time,  Scene  IV,  near  end. 

7 Bonduca,  I,  i. 

8Cymbeline,  I,  i,  3  thems,  o  'em'  I,  4,  o  them,  i  'em  [prose];  I,  5,  3 
thems,  o  'em ;  I,  6,  5  thems,  o  'ern ;  II,  i,  2  thems,  o  'em ;  II,  3,  i  them, 
o  'em ;  II,  4,  4  thems,  o  'ern  ;  II,  5,  4  thems,  o  'em ;  III,  i,  3  thems,  o 
'em;  III,  2,  2  thems,  o  'em;  III,  3,  2  thems,  i  'em;  III,  4,  i  them,  o 
'em;  III,  6,  3  thems,  o 'em  ;  IV,  i,  i  them,  o 'em  ;  IV,  2,  12  thems, 
o  'ern ;  IV,  3,  2  thems,  o  'em ;  IV,  4,  i  them,  o  'em ;  V,  i,  2  thems,  o 
'em  ;  V,  3,  2  thems,  i  'em  ;  V,  4,  5  thems,  o  'em ;  V,  5,  6  thetns,  o  'em. 
Total,  64  thems,  3  'ems. 

25 


three  ''ems';  in  the  Winter's  Tale?  thirty-seven  'thems'  and 
eight  "ems;'  and  in  the  Tempest?  thirty-eight  '  thems '  and 
thirteen  '  'ems.' 

So  far  as  my  observation  goes  '  'em'  occurs  with  the  same 
comparative  infrequency  in  the  earlier  plays  as  in  the  romances. 

Massinger  invariably  uses  'them.'  At  least,  I  have  gone 
through  seven  of  his  plays  without  finding  a  single  ''em/ 
while  each  play  contains  from  twenty  to  fifty  'thems.'8 
These  seven  plays,  the  Maid  of  Honour,  the  Duke  of  Milan,  A 
New  Way  to  Pay  Old  Debts,  the  Great  Dtike  of  Florence,  the 
Guardian,  the  Roman  Actor,  the  City  Madam,  differ  widely  in 
character  and  date  and  must  fairly  represent  his  practice. 

Beaumont's  practice  is  less  certain.  In  the  first  two  plays 
of  Four  Plays  in  One,4  which  are  generally  assigned  to  him, 
there  are  four  'thems'  and  eight  '  'ems.'  In  the  Woman 
Hater,  also  generally  assigned  to  him,  there  are  twenty-eight 
'  thems'  and  seven  '  'ems.'5  In  A  King  and  No  King,  in 
the  portion  assigned  to  Beaumont  by  Mr.  Boyle,6  there  are 

1  Winter's  Tale,  I,  i,  i  them,  o  'em;  I,  2,  2  thems,  o'em;  II,  i,  2 
thems,  i  em ;  II,  2,  i  them,  o  'em  ;  II,  3,  2  thems,  o  'em  ;  III,  i,  i  them, 
o'em;  III,  2,  2  thems,  o'em;  III,  3,  i  them,  2  'ems  [prose];  IV,  3, 
o  them,  2  'ems;  IV,  4,  18  thems,  3  'ems  [7  thems,  2  'ems,  in  prose];  V, 
i,  3  thems,  o  'em  ;  V,  2,  3  thems,  o  'em  [prose];  V,  3,  i  them,  o  'em. 
Total,  37  thems,  8  'ems. 

2  The  Tempest  contains  in  addition  four  'ems  in  one  line  of  a  snatch, 
III,  i,  130. 

"  Flout  'em  and  scout  'em, 
And  scout  'em  and  flout  em." 

And  one  additional  them  in  a  song,  I,  2,  404.  Counting  these  the 
total  is  39  thems,  17  'ems. 

The  Tempest,  I,  i,  i  them,  o  'em  ;  I,  2,  5  thems,  4  'ems  ;  II,  i,  4  thems, 
o'em;  II,  2,  o  them,  i  '-m;  III,  i,  i  them,  i  'em;  III,  2,  3  thems,  i 
'em;  III,  3,  5  thems,  2  'ems;  IV,  i,  7  thems,  o  'em;  V,  i,  12  thems,  4 
'ems.  Total,  38  thems,  13  'ems. 

I  suspect  that  this  proportion  CA  '  'ems '  is  about  Shakspere's  maxi- 
mum. 

3  For  table  of  these  plays,  see  next  page. 

4  Triumph  of  Honoitr,  3  thems  i  'em.     Triumph  of  Love,  i  them, 
6 'ems.     Total,  4  thems,  8 'ems. 

6The  Woman  Hater,  Prologue,  3  thems,  o  'ems ;  I,  i,  i  them,  o 
'ems;  I,  2,  o  thems,  o  'ems,  I,  3,  i  them,  i  'em;  II,  i,  5  thems,  i  'em; 

II,  2,  o  thems,  o  'ems;  III,  i,  i  them,  o  'ems;  III,  2,  o  thems,  o  'ems; 

III,  3,  i  them,  i  em ;    IV,  i,  8  thems,  o  'ems  ;    IV,  2,  2  thems,  i  'em ; 
V,  i,  i  them,  i  'em;  V,  2,  i  them,  o  'ems;  V,  3,  o  thems,  o  'ems  ;  V. 
4,  2  thems,  o  'ems;  V,  5,  2  thems,  o  'ems.     Total,  28  thems,  7  'ems. 

6A  King  and  No  King,  I,  i,  o  thems,  10  'ems ;  I,  2,  o  thems,  o  'ems ;  II, 

1,  i  them,  4  'ems ;  II,  2,  2  thems,  4  'ems ;  III,  i,  o  thems,  3  'ems ;  III, 

2,  i  them,  3  'ems;  III,  3,  o  thems,  3  'ems;  IV,   i,  o  thems,   2  'ems  ; 

IV,  2,  o  thems,  4  'ems ;  IV,  3,  o  thems,  o  'ems ;  IV,  4,  i  them,  9  'ems ; 

V,  i,  o  thems,  3  'ems ;  V,  2,  o  thems,  i  'em ;  V,  3,  2  thems,  o  'ems ;  V, 
4,  2  thems,  5  'ems.     Total,  9  thems,  51  'ems.* 

*Iu  a  King  and  No  King,  Mr.  Boyle  assigns  IV,  i ;  IV,  2  ;  IV,  3  ;  V,  2  to  Fletcher, 
leaving  Beaumont  the  rest  with  7  thems  and  42  'ems;  but  whatever  division  is 
made  the  proportion  of  thems  and  'ems  in  Beaumont's  share  will  not  be  greatly 
changed. 

26 


seven  'thems'  and  forty-two  "ems.'  So  far  as  appears  on 
the  face,  these  results  indicate  that  Beaumont  used  '  'em '  and 
'them'  indiscriminately.  Field  certainly  did;  for  in  his  A 
Woman  is  a  Weathercock,  there  are,  so  far  as  I  have  counted, 
eighteen  '  'ems  '  and  twelve  '  thems.' 

The  definite  results  obtained  in  the  cases  of  Fletcher,  Mas- 
singer  and  Shakspere  furnish  safe  standards.  Modern  texts 
follow  the  first  quartos  or  folios  carefully  ;  and  the  uniformity 
of  the  results,  compared  with  the  diversity  of  editions,  shows 
that  printers'  errors  may  be  disregarded.  I  cannot  find, 
either,  that  any  one  of  these  authors  is  distinctly  influenced 
in  his  use  of  ( 'em  '  by  the  character  of  the  speaker.  Thus, 
Prospero  says  '  'em'  as  well  as  Ariel,  Caliban,  and  Antonio. 
Neither  does  the  nature  of  the  subject  matter  nor  the  use  of 
prose  make  any  appreciable  difference.  The  preference  for 
«.;  *!-,£»*•  <  'd-m  '  r»v  '  tVip>m  '  <;pprn«  rn  have  been  merelv  an  individ- 


The  statements  on  pp.  26  and  27  in  regard  to  Massinger's  use  of 
'them'  and  the  table  in  the  foot-note  on  p.  27,  I  have  found  to  be 
incorrect  by  an  examination  of  the  original  quartos.  The  statements 
were  based  on  modern  editions  of  Massinger  which  profess  to  follow 
the  early  quartos  carefully.  Gifford,  however,  in  every  case  changes 
'  'em'  to  'them,'  and  the  edition  of  Massinger's  plays  in  the  Mermaid 
series  have  followed  his  example.  While  Massinger  uses  'them'  much 
more  frequently  than  Fletcher,  his  practice  is  not  consistent  enough 
to  serve  as  a  test  in  any  particular  case.  In  the  foot-notes  on  pp.  41 
and  5Q,  those  arguments  against  Massinger's  authorship  which  are 
based  on  the  '  'em-them'  test  must  therefore  be  withdrawn. 


** 

Vf 

g 

ft 

3 

B 

03 

^ 

S, 

i 

.  of  Hon 

t  Duki 
lorence 

in  Acto 

B 

p" 
P 

51 
I 

P 
PI 

i 

* 

| 

IP 

S, 

I 

5 

4 

4 

6 

5 

7 

7 

2 

7. 

6 

4 

i 

12 

4 

3 

3 

5 

5 

4 

13 

3 

14 

6 

4 

4 

8 

6 

7 

9 

3 

6 

5 

3 

i 

3 

i 

18 

3 

10 

Total 

24 

24 

21 

28 

5ot 

3i 

3»t 

210 

t  3  'thems'  in  prologue.    Total  without  these,  47. 

J  Two  of  the  dramatis  personae  are  called  '  Ding  'em '  and  ' 


Have  'em.' 


''em;'  in  the  Fletcher  part,  one  'them'  and  six  "ems.'  In 
general,  the  existence  of  even  a  single  'em  in  a  Massinger  part 
is  very  suspicious,  and  the  existence  of  a  large  number  of  'ems 
is  a  pretty  safe  indication  of  Fletcher.  The  test  will  also  in 
some  cases,  I  think,  serve  to  call  attention  to  interpolations  or 
additions  by  a  second  author,  which  verse-tests  alone  would 
not  indicate.  Thus,  even  the  single  'em  in  Massinger' s  part 
of  the  Queen  of  Corinth  is  enough,  to  warrant  special  examina- 
tion of  the  passage  in  search  of  a  second  hand.  Of  course, 
the  serviceableness  of  the  test  is  limited;  and  it  is  of  little 
value  except  as  a  supplement  of  the  usual  verse-tests.  Since 
we  are  concerned  with  dates  rather  than  with  authorship,  there 
will  be  little  occasion  to  use  it;  there  will  be  sufficient  occasion, 
however,,  to  demonstrate  its  value. 

/.      Court  Masques  and  the  Chronology. 

A  word  or  two  must  be  added  in  regard  to  the  influence  of 
the  court-masques  on  the  public  drama. 

During  the  reign  of  James  I.,  court-masques  attained  a 
great  importance  both  as  splendid  spectacles  and  in  the  liter- 
ature of  the  time.  They  were  very  numerous,  were  pro- 
duced at  great  expense,  and  engaged  the  services  of  the  best 
poets  of  the  day.  Usually  performed  at  a  marriage,  or  on  some 
festival  like  those  of  the  Christmas  season,  they  consisted 
primarily  of  two  parts,  ( i )  the  dramatic  dialogue  usually  setting 
forth  some  allegorical  or  mythological  device  which  formed  the 
basis  of  an  impressive  spectacle,  and  (2)  the  dances  interspersed 
with  songs  and  accompanied  by  music.  These  dances  were 
performed  by  ladies  and  gallants  of  the  highest  court  circles, 
the  queen  often  participating.  In  addition  to  these  elements, 
about  the  year  1608  a  third  appeared,  the  anti-masque,  con- 
sisting of  grotesque  dances  by  '  antick  '  personages.  These 
comic  anti-masques  at  once  became  exceedingly  popular  and 
played  no  small  part  in  the  entertainments.  The  antic  dancers 
were  almost  always  actors  from  the  public  theaters.1 

Fletcher's  Part;  I,  3,  a,  o  thems,  o  'ems;  I,  4,  o  tliems,  o  'ems;  II,  i, 

0  thems,  o  'ems ;  II,  2,  o  thems,    i  'em ;  II,  3,  o  thems,  i  'em :  II,  4, 

1  them,  4  'ems.     Total,  i  them,  6  'ems. 

1  For  a  full  account  of  the  English  masques,  see  Die  Englischen  Mask- 
enpiele,  Alfred  Soergel,  Halls,  1882.  In  addition  to  the  evidence  which 
Dr.  Soergel  gives  for  the  presence  of  actors  from  the  theaters,  see 
Middleton's  the  Inner  Temple  Masque  ;  or  Masque  of  Heroes,  quarto 
1619,  where  a  list  of  actors  from  a  public  company  is  given.  For 
further  illustration  of  the  part  which  actors  played  in  entertainments 
and  pageants,  see  the  Athenceum,  May  19,  1888,  where  Mr.  Halliwell- 
Phillipps  shows  that  Burbadge  and  Rice  were  "the  players  that  rodd 
upon  the  twoe  fishes  and  made  the  speeches  at  the  meeting  of  the  highe 
and  mighty  prince  of  Walles  upon  the  river  Thames  " — June  5,  1610. 
Burbadge,  "  Amphion  seated  on  a  dolphin,"  Rice,  "a  nymph,  riding 
on  a  whale."  See  also  the  "Entertainment  to  King  James,"  Th. 

28 


This  last  fact  points  to  an  interesting  connection  between  the 
masques  and  the  drama,  for  it  establishes  an  a  priori  probability 
that  the  antic  dances  used  in  the  masques  would  be  performed 
again  in  the  theaters.  As  Mr.  Harold  Littledale  has  shown,1 
such  a  repetition  of  an  anti-masque  does  undoubtedly  occur  in 
the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  borrowed  from  Beaumont's  Masque  of 
the  Inner  Temple  and  Gray' s  Inn,  1613,  and  consequently  the 
play  may  be  dated  shortly  after  1613.  I  shall  suggest  that  the 
date  of  the  Winter1  s  Tale  is  in  a  similar  way  determined  by  the 
repetition  of  a  dance  of  satyrs  from  Jonson's  Masqiie  of  Oberon. 

The  influence  of  the  masques  in  a  more  general  way  on  the 
public  drama  has  been  emphasized  by  Mr.  Fleay 2  and  treated 
at  length  by  Dr.  Soergel.  I  shall  have  occasion  to  note  this 
influence  in  the  plays  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  Shak- 
spere.  Here  I  merely  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  possible 
service  of  a  study  of  this  influence  in  determining  the  dates 
of  plaj7s.  There  were  forty-nine  masques  performed  at  court 
1603-1642;  and  it  is  very  probable  that  public  plays  borrowed 
many  details  in  addition  to  anti-masques.8 

Dekker,  quarto,  1604.  'Zeal'  "whose  personage  was  put  on  by  W. 
Bourne,  one  of  the  servants  to  the  young  Prince." 

!See  The  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  ed.  Harold  lyittledale,  New  Shak- 
spere  Society.  Series  II,  7,  8,  15,  1876-85.  Mr.  L,ittledale  was  unac- 
quainted with  Dr.  Soergel's  investigation  and  gave  this  borrowing  less 
prominence  than  it  deserves  in  fixing  the  date.  See  the  discussion  of 
the  play  in  chapter  4. 

2  Fleay :  Chr.  I.  12.  Soergel,  p.  87,  seq.  Fleay  seems  to  think  that 
masques  occur  in  plays  only  when  they  were  added  for  some  court 
performance.  So  he  conjectures  that  the  masques  in  the  Tempest  and 
the  Maid's  Tragedy  were  additions.  Dr.  Soergel  has  shown  that 
similar  masques  occur  in  other  plays ;  and  many  features  of  the  court- 
masque  were  certainly  introduced  on  the  public  stage. 

8  Much  of  the  material  in  this  section  and  in  the  discussion  of  the 
masques  in  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen  and  the  Tempest,  has  been  already 
published  in  Publications  of  the  Mod.  Lang.  Ass^n  of  America.  Vol. 
XV  ;  No.  i.  "  Influence  of  the  Court-Masques  on  the  drama." 


29 


-*• 

;  ;  CHAPTER  III. 

CHRONOLOGY  OF  SHAKSPERE' s  ROMANCES. 

These  three  plays  were  first  entered  S.  R.  and  published  in 
folio  in  1623.  From  the  agreement  of  different  verse-tests  and 
from  the  general  opinion  of  critics,  they  are  thought  to  have 
been  written  at  the  close  of  Shakspere' s  career  and  after  all 
his  plays  except  Henry  VIII  and  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen. 
There  is  almost  no  evidence,  however,  even  from  verse- tests, 
to  determine  the  relative  order  of  the  three;  although  the 
general  character  of  style  seems  to  indicate  that  Cymbeline  was 
the  earliest. 

The  Tragedy  of  Cymbeline.  There  is  no  record  of  any  court 
performance,  and  the  only  evidence  for  the  date 1  is  the  entry  in 
the  note  book  of  Dr.  Simon  Forman.  This  entry  is  not  dated; 
but  as  the  accompanying  note  on  Macbeth  is  dated  April  20, 
1610,  and  that  of  the  Winter's  Tale,  May  15,  1611,  the  Cym- 
beline entry  must  belong  to  those  years.  Forman  died  in 
September  161 1,  so  that  is  the  outside  date  for  the  entry.  Mr. 
Fleay,  who  thinks  Shakspere  retired  from  play-writing  in  1610, 
fixes  the  date  of  Cymbeline  in  i6o9;2  and  since  that  year  was 
a  plague  year,  thinks  the  play  was  perhaps  not  finished  for  the 
stage  until  after  Shakspere' s  retirement.  Yet  he  thinks  Phil- 
aster  (certainly  before  Oct.,  1610)  contains  passages  suggested 
by  Cymbeline.*  He  also  thinks  that  the  historical  parts  of 
Cymbeline  were  written  about  1606,  when  Shakspere  may  have 
been  using  Holinshed  for  material  for  Lear  and  Macbeth.* 
These  are  pure  conjectures.  So  far  as  the  plague  of  1608-9 
may  be  taken  to  have  diminished  theatrical  activity,6  the  fact 
makes  1610  rather  than  1609  a  probable  date.  Forman' s  elabo- 
rate description  indicates  that  the  play  was  new  to  him.  The 
date  is  probably  within  a  year  of  1610. 

The  Tempest.  It  was  one  of  the  fourteen  court  plays  paid 
for  on  May  20,  1613  (Vertue  Ms.),6  and  consequently  was 

1  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  1600  quarto  of  Much  Ado  contains  the 
following  opening  stage  direction:  "Enter  Leonate  (and)  Imogen 
his  wife."  Imogen  does  not  appear  elsewhere  in  the  play. 

*LifeofShaks.,  p.  246. 

3Chr.  II,  p.  193. 
of  Shaks., 


p.  246,  Chr.  II,  193. 
6  See  pp.  14-17. 
*Sh.  Soc.  Papers.     II,  p.  124. 


30 


acted  at  court  in  the  fall  or  winter  1612-13.  According  to  the 
forged  revels'  accounts  of  Cunningham,  it  was  also  acted  at 
court  1 6 1 1 ,  Nov.  i ;  and  there  is  evidence  that  these  forgeries 
were  based  in  part  on  fact.1  It  is  probably  referred  to,  together 
with  the  Winter's  Tale  in  the  induction  to  Ben  Jonson's  Bartho- 
lemew  Fair.'2'  The  name,  Tempest,  has  been  thought  by  some 
to  have  been  suggested  by  the  great  storms  of  the  fall  of  1612; 
and  by  others  by  the  tempest  encountered  by  Sir  George 
Somers  on  his  voyage  to  the  Bermudas,  1609. 

Malone3  has  shown  certain  resemblances  between  passages 
in  the  play  and  passages  in  Jourdan's  A  Discovery  of  the  Ber- 
mudas, otherwise  called  the  Isle  of  Devils,  by  Sir  Thomas  Gates, 
Sir  George  Somers,  and  Captain  Newport,  with  divers  others, 
which  was  published  Oct.  13,  1610.  Malone  also  thought  that 
particulars  in  the  play  were  derived  from  A  True  Declaration 
of  the  Estate  of  the  Colony  of  Virginia,  published  Nov.  8, 
1610.  Mr.  Fleay,  on  the  contrary,  thinks  the  word  tragi- 
comedy in  this  last  pamphlet  refers  to  the  play,  and,  hence,  he 
concludes  that  the  Tempest  was  acted  between  the  dates  of  the 
publication  of  Jourdan's  narrative  and  A  True  Declaration.  A 
glance  at  the  passage4  in  question  will  show  how  groundless  is 
this  conjecture. 

Dr.  Furness,  in  his  variorum  edition  of  the  Tempest,  is  in- 
clined to  belittle  the  importance  of  both  of  Malone' s  sugges- 
tions, and  thinks  that  similar  resemblances  can  be  shown 
between  particular  passages  in  the  play  and  Wm.  Strachey's 
A  True  reporatory  of  the  wracke  and  redemption  of  Sir  Thomas 
Gates,  Knight  iipon  and  from  the  Islands  of  Bermudas,  etc. , 
which  was  published  in  1612.  This  argument  is  by  no  means 
a  reductio  ad  absurdam,  for  Strachey's  narrative  may  possibly 
have  preceded  the  play.  Such  evidence  as  Malone 's  is  not 
absolutely  conclusive,  and,  in  the  case  of  the  True  Declaration, 
not  quite  convincing;  but  the  references  in  the  play  to  the  '  '  still - 
vext  Bermoothes5"  and  the  detailed  points  of  resemblance 


JSee  Furness'  Variorum  Edition  of  Othello,  pp.  351-360.     Also  Sid- 
ney Lee's  Life,  p.  254,  note. 

2  "  If  there  be  never  a  servant-monster  in  the  fair,  who  can  help  it, 
he  says,  nor  a  nest  of  antiques?    he  is  loth  to  make  nature  afraid 
in  his  play,  like  those  that  beget  tales,  tempests,  and  such  like  drol- 
leries, to  mix  his  head  with  other  men's  heels  ;  let  the  concupiscence 
of  jigs  and  dances  reign  as  strong  as  it  will  amongst  you,  etc." 

3  Variorum  Shakespeare,  1821. 

4  "  What  is  there  in  all  this  tragicall-comsedie  that  should  encourage 
us  with  the  impossibility  of  the  enterprise?     When,  of  all  the  fleete, 
one  onely  ship  by  a  secret  leake  was  indangered,  and  yet  in  the  gulfe 
of  despaire  was  so  graciously  preserved."     See  Fleay,  Shaks.,  pp.  248, 
249. 

6  I,   2,  229. 

31 


make  it  fairly  certain  that  the  play  was  not  acted  until  after 
Jourdan's  narrative  was  published.1 

The  news  of  Somer's  voyage  created  great  interest  in  lyon- 
don  in  September,  1610,  and  there  were  four  other  narratives 
besides  Jourdan's,  which  was  the  earliest.2  The  date  of  the 
play,  then,  cannot  be  earlier  than  Oct.  13,  1610,  and  not  later 
than  the  court  presentation,  1613.  It  was  probably  written  and 
acted  late  in  1610  or  early  in  1611. 

A  Winter's  Tale.  I^ike  the  Tempest,  it  was  one  of  the  four- 
teen plays  acted  at  court  1613,  and  was  referred  to  by  Jonson 
in  Bartholomew  Fair?  It  was  described  in  Dr.  Forman's  note- 
book under  the  date  May  15,  1611.  This  is  the  final  limit  for 
the  date.4  I  think  the  early  limit  is  determined  by  the  date  of 
Ben  Jonson' s  Masque  of  Oberon,  Jan.  i,  161 1. 

This  contains  an  anti-masque  of  satyrs,  and  I  conjecture  that 
the  dance  of  satyrs  in  the  Winter's  Tale  was  directly  suggested 
by  the  anti-masque.  Anti-masques,  as  we  have  seen,5  were 
first  introduced  about  1608,  and  at  once  became  very  popular. 
In  Oberon  there  is  one  of  these  antic  dances,  doubtless  per- 
formed by  actors  from  the  public  theaters.  This  was  a  dance 
of  ten  (or  twelve)6  satyrs,  "with  bells  on  their  shaggy  thighs," 
and  is  thus  described. 

' '  Here  they  fell  suddenly  into  an  antic  dance  full  of  gesture 
and  swift  motion  and  continued  it  till  the  crowing  of  the  cock. ' ' 

Again,  after  the  entrance  of  Oberon,  there  was  a  little  more 
dancing  by  the  satyrs. 

"  And  the  satyrs  beginning  to  leap,  and  express  their  joy 
for  the  unused  state  and  solemnity." 

In  the  Winter' s  Tale  there  is  a  similar  antic  dance  of  twelve 


1  There  is  no  other  evidence  as  to  date.  Gouzalo's  description  (II, 
i,  147)  is  from  Florio's  Montaigne  (ist  edition,  1603).  The  "dead  In- 
dian" (II,  2,  36)  exhibited  for  a  show,  offers  no  aid  in  regard  to  the 
date.  It  may  refer  to  one  of  Frobisher's  Indians  (1577).  There  were, 
also,  some  Indians  brought  from  New  England  in  i6ir.  For  notice  of 
Fleay's  theory  that  the  masque  was  added  by  another  writer  for  the 
court  presentation.  See  p.  29. 

2 See  Sidney  Lee's  Life,  pp.  252,  253. 

8 It  may,  also,  have  been  acted  at  court  in  Nov.,  1611.  It  is  one  of 
the  plays  assigned  to  that  date  in  the  forged  revels'  accounts.  See  p.  30. 

4  No  other  date  can  be  assigned  as  a  final  limit  with  any  probability. 
Mr.  Fleay  thinks  there  are  several  references  to  the  play  in  Jonson's 
address  to  the  reader  in  the  1612  quarto  of  the  Alchemist.    The  phrase 
"  concupiscence  of  dances  and  jigs  "  reminds  one  of  the  wording  of  the 
reference  in  the  induction  to  Bartholomew  Fair;  but  the  other  ref- 
erences which  Mr.  Fleay  sees  are  less  convincing.     See  Chr.  I,  275. 
The  passages  in  the  Alchemist  and  Bartholomew  Fair  show  that  Jon- 
son was  decidedly  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  masques  and  anti- 
masques  into  plays. 

5  See  p.  28. 

6  "  Two  sy Ivans  "  possibly  join  in  the  dance. 

32 


satyrs  which  is  clearly  an  addition  to  please  the  audiences  of 
the  day. 

"Servant.  Master,  there  is  three  carters,  three  shepherds, 
three  neat-herds,  three  swine-herds,  that  have  made  themselves 
all  men  of  hair,  they  call  themselves  Saltiers,  and  they  have  a 
dance  which  the  wenches  say  is  a  gallimaufry  of  gambols, 
because  they  are  not  in't;  but  they  themselves  are  o'  the  mind, 
if  it  be  not  too  rough  for  some  that  know  little  but  bowling, 
it  will  please  plentifully. 

Shepherd.  Away!  we'll  none  on't;  here  has  been  too  much 
homely  foolery  already.  I  know,  sir,  we  weary  you. 

Polixenes.  You  weary  those  that  refresh  us:  pray,  let's  see 
these  four  threes  of  herdsmen. 

Servant.  One  three  of  them,  by  their  own  report,  sir,  hath 
danced  before  the  king;  and  not  the  worst  of  the  three  but 
jumps  twelve  foot  and  a  half  by  the  squier. 

Sheperd.  Leave  your  prating;  since  these  good  men  are 
pleased,  let  them  come  in;  but  quickly  now. 

Servant.     Why,  they  stay  at  door,  sir.      [Exit."] 

Here  a  dance  of  twelve  satyrs.  * ' 

Like  the  dancers  in  the  masque,  these  are  great  leapers  and 
like  those  they  are  men  of  hair.  Moreover,  three  of  them  by 
their  own  report  had  danced  before  the  king  as  did  the  satyrs 
in  the  masque. 

Now,  while  satyrs  were  not  altogether  uncommon  on  the 
Elizabethan  stage,  a  dance  of  satyrs  ' '  full  of  gesture  and  swift 
motion  ' '  was  certainly  an  inovation  in  1 6 1 1 .  Such  anti- 
masques  were  only  introduced  about  1608,  and  such  a  dance 
of  satyrs  is  not  found  in  any  court  masque  before,  or  for  that 
matter  after,  i6n.2  The  Winter's  Tale  is  generally  dated 
about  the  first  of  i6n;8  therefore,  either  Jonson  must  have 
borrowed  from  the  public  stage  the  idea  of  an  antic  dance  of 
satyrs  for  his  court  masque,  or  Shakspere  must  have  borrowed 

iIV,  4,  11.  331-353- 

2  There  is  a  dance  of  "six  Sylvaus  "  in  act  III,  scene  2,  of  Chap- 
man's the  Widow's  Tears,  4to,  1612,  acted  according  to  Fleay  in  1605. 
This  dance  is  the  main  feature  of  a  brief  wedding  masque.  The  syl- 
vans  bear  torches,  are  "fair"  and  "fresh  and  flowery."  They  lead 
out  the  bride  and  five  other  ladies,  who 

"all  turn  nymphs  to-night 
To  side  these  sprightly  wood-gods  in  their  dances." 

Altho  the  sy Ivans  are  elsewhere  alluded  to  as  "curveting  and  trip- 
ping on  the  toe,"  and  their  dances  are  called  "  active  and  antic,"  they 
evidently  were  not  as  active  as  Jonson's  satyrs  nor  at  all  grotesque, 
and  their  dance  was  not  an  anti-masque.  It  was,  in  fact,  the  masque 
proper,  danced  with  the  ladies  and  closing  the  entertainment. 

3Jonson  and  Shakspere  were  friends,  and  at  this  time  both  were 
writing  plays  for  the  King's  men.  Jonson:  Alchemist,  1610;  Catiline, 
1611. 

4  33 


from  the  court  masque  this  new  and  popular  stage  device  for 
his  Winter's  Tale.  The  second  alternative  is  far  more  probable 
because  of  the  great  importance  of  the  court  masques  and  the 
desire  for  novelty  in  them,  and  because  the  public  may  natur- 
ally be  supposed  to  have  been  anxious  to  see  a  reproduction  of 
a  popular  anti-masque.  It  gains  additional  probability  from 
the  fact  that  actors  from  the  theaters  performed  in  these  anti- 
masques  and  from  the  reference  to  the  three  who  had  already 
danced  before  the  king.  It  is  still  more  probable  because 
an  anti-masque  in  Beaumont's  Masque  of  the  Inner  Temple  is  ob- 
viously made  use  of  in  a  similar  way  in  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen.1 
Finally,  we  may  note  that  the  dance  is  an  integral  part  of  the 
Masque  of  Oberon,  while  it  is  a  pure  addition  to  the  play.2 

The  probability  is,  then,  strong  that  Jonson  devised  this 
dance  of  satyrs  for  his  Masque  of  Oberon,  where  it  was  performed, 
at  least  in  part,  by  actors  from  the  King's  men,  and  that  Shak- 
spere  introduced  the  dance,  doubtless  with  some  variations  but 
with  some  of  the  same  actors,  in  the  Winter*  s~  Tale.  This 
fixes  the  date  of  the  play  between  Jan.  i,  and  May  15,  1611. 
This  harmonizes  with  the  generally  assigned  date  1610-11. 


p.  44. 

2  It  is  worth  noting  that  in  the  masque  the  chariot  of  Oberon  was 
drawn  by  two  white  bears.  Perhaps  here  as  in  the  dance,  costume  and 
actor  reappeared  in  the  play  in  the  bear  who  chases  Antigonous. 
(HI.  30 


34 


CHAPTER  IV. 

CHRONOLOGY  AND  DISCUSSION  OF  HENRY  VIII,   THE  Two 
NOBLE  KINSMEN,  AND  CARDENIO. 

What  external  evidence  there  is  assigns  Henry  VIII  to 
Shakspere  (the  folio  of  1623)  and  the  Tivo  Noble  Kinsmen 
to  Shakspere  and  Fletcher  (quarto,  1634).  Since  Mr. 
Spedding's  essay  in  I85O,1  there  has  been  a  growing  belief 
that  Fletcher  also  had  a  part  in  Henry  VIII;  and  since  Mr. 
Spaulding's  essay  in  1833, 2  perhaps  a  majority  of  critics  have 
been  inclined  to  recognize  Shakspere' s  work  in  the  Two 
Noble  Kinsmen.  Great  diversity  of  opinion,  however,  still 
exists.  While  no  one  doubts  Fletcher's  share  in  the  Two 
Noble  Kinsmen,  there  are  all  sorts  of  opinions  in  regard  to  the 
non-Fletcherian  part;  and  in  the  case  of  Henry  VIII  some 
critics  still  think  it  is  wholly  by  Shakspere8  while  others 
doubt  if  he  had  anything  to  do  with  it.4  A  large  majority  ot 
competent  judges  at  present  recognize  Shakspere  as  author 
of  a  part  of  Henry  VIII  and  Fletcher  as  author  of  part  of 
Two  Noble  Kinsmen',  but  we  have  at  most  only  the  support  of 
a  doubtful  majority  in  assigning  each  play  to  both  Shaks- 
pere and  Fletcher. 

The  reasons  and  authorities  for  this  opinion  will  be  given 
in  the  discussion  of  each  play,  but  at  the  start  we  may  note 
two  general  objections  which  have  had  great  weight  with 
critics  of  judgment.  In  the  first  place,  they  have  found  it 
difficult  to  think  of  Shakspere  condescending  to  write  a  play 
in  company  with  another  dramatist,  especially  when,  as  in 
Henry  VIII,  his  part  is  somewhat  the  less  important.  Yet 
Shakspere  apparently  had  co-adjutors  in  both  Timon  and 
Pericles,  and  co-adjutors  certainly  inferior  to  Fletcher  in  both 
ability  and  reputation.  In  1613,  Fletcher  was  one  of  the  most 
prominent  dramatists,  and  it  is  very  doubtful  if  Shakspere 
would  have  seen  any  condescension  in  taking  Beaumont's 
place.  This  objection  is  simply  another  exhibition  of  the 

1  Gentleman's  Magazine,  1850,  reprinted  New  Shakespeare  Society's 
Transactions,  1874. 

2  Reprinted  by  New  Shakespeare  Society,  1876.     See,  also,  N.  S.  S. 
Transactions,  1874. 

3  Mr.  Halliwell-Phillipps.     Outlines,  II,  292-4. 

4  Mr.  Boyle.    N.  S.  S.  Transactions,  1884. 

35 


,  common  fallacy  of  always  regarding  Shakspere  as  a  world 
genius  and  never  as  an  Elizabethan  dramatist.  Shakspere' s 
own  practices  and  the  general  practice  of  Elizabethan  drama- 
tists, show  that  his  collaboration  with  Fletcher  would  be  no 
cause  for  wonder. 

In  the  second  place,  the  inferiority  of  the  supposed  Shaks- 
perean  parts  in  comparison  with  the  best  of  his  mature  work 
has  led  some  to  question  his  authorship.  In  the  Two  Noble 
Kinsmen,  particularly,  the  non-Fletcherian  parts,  good  as 
they  are,  have  not  seemed  quite  worthy  of  Shakspere.  The 
trouble  with  this  objection  is  that  it  rather  assumes  that 
Shakspere  was  always  at  his  best  and  entirely  overlooks  the 
fact  that  his  worst  was  decidedly  bad.  We  must  remember 
that  probably  at  about  the  same  time  that  he  was  writing 
Antony  and  Cleopatra  he  was  also  writing  Coriolanus,  Timon 
and  Pericles.  When  we  discern  weakness  of  characterization 
in  Henry  VIII or  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  we  must  remember 
that  after  creating  the  Falstaff  of  Henry  IV\\z  could  produce 
the  Falstaff  of  Merry  Wives.  There  were,  of  course,  no 
other  dramatists  who  wrote  anywhere  nearly  as  well  as  he  did 
at  his  best,  and  to  my  mind,  there  were  no  other  dramatists 
who  wrote  very  much  like  his  style  at  his  best  or  worst.  Any- 
how, the  question  in  regard  to  the  supposed  Shaksperean 
parts  of  these  plays  is  not,  are  they  as  good  as  he  could  do  ? 
but  are  they  like  what  he  did  ? 

So  much  for  these  two  general  objections;  the  elaborate 
theories  that  have  been  built  up  in  respect  to  the  plays,  we 
can  by  no  means  consider  in  detail.  Almost  every  critic  who 
has  dealt  with  the  plays  has  his  own  theory  of  dates  and 
authorship;  and  many  a  critic  has  seen  fit  to  reject  his  first 
theory  for  a  second.  To  discuss  all  these  adequately  would 
require  a  volume;  there  are,  however,  two  main  positions 
often  taken  which  seem  to  me  untenable  and  which  will  be 
noted  in  our  discussion  of  the  plays.  These  two  positions 
may  be  stated  here. 

First,  apart  from  the  general  objection  to  Shakspere's 
authorship  just  noticed,  efforts  have  been  made  to  determine 
the  author  of  the  non-Fletcherian  parts  of  the  plays.  These 
parts  are  thought  by  some  not  only  unequal  to  Shakspere 
but  also  unlike  Shakspere,  or  at  least  more  like  another. 
Mr.  Boyle's  papers  assigning  these  parts  to  Massinger1  are 
the  most  systematic  exposition  of  this  opinion,  but  other 
students  give  Massinger  a  different  share  and  still  others  think 
Beaumont,  Chapman,  or  some  one  else  was  the  author.  These 
theories  can  only  be  briefly  touched  upon  in  our  discussion, 

1N.  S.  S.  Transactions,  1880-86;  p.  371  seq  ;  p.  443  seq.  See,  also, 
Eng.  Studien,  Vol.  IV. 

36 


but  the  evidence  for  Shakspere's  authorship  will  be  noted 
in  the  case  of  each  play. 

Second,  many  who  think  Shakspere  had  a  share  in  one  or 
both  of  these  plays,  do  not  think  that  he  wrote  in  direct  col- 
laboration with  Fletcher,  but  that  he  left  the  plays  unfinished 
and  they  were  completed  by  Fletcher,1  or  as  is  held  by  others, 
by  Fletcher  and  Massinger.2  We  shall  later  consider  some 
definite  evidence  against  this  opinion. 

In  the  main,  however,  our  discussion  of  the  two  plays  will  have 
little  to  do  with  theories.  Leaving  objections  and  counter- 
theories  to  one  side;  I  shall  try  to  show  definite  evidence  ( i ) 
that  both  plays  were  first  acted  in  1613  and  (2)  that  both  plays 
were  written  by  Shakspere  and  Fletcher  in  direct  collaboration. 

HENRY  VIII. 

Date.     First  printed  in  folio  of  1623. 

On  June  29,  1613,  while  the  King's  men  were  acting  a  play 
of  Henry  VIII  the  Globe  Theater  was  burned.  The  event  is 
described  in  several  letters  of  the  time,3  but  whether  the  play 
then  being  acted  was  the  Henry  VIII  oi  the  folio  of  1623,  is 
not  absolutely  certain.  The  fact,  however,  that  a  Henry  VIII 
was  played  by  Shakspere's  company  at  a  time  when  Shakspere4 
was  connected  with  that  company  and  was  very  possibly  in 
London,5  makes  it  practically  certain  that  this  was  the  Henry 
VIII  published  by  two  of  the  company  in  the  folio  of  1623. 

Moreover,  the  account  given  by  sir  Henry  Wotton  of  the 
1613  play,  applies  in  several  important  particulars  to  the  folio 

!So  Mr.  Spedding  on  Henry  VIII.     N.  S.  S.  Transactions,  1874. 
2  Mr.   Oliphant  and  Mr.  Fleay  think  Massinger  "revised  Fletcher's 
work. 

8 Harleian  Ms.  7002.  A  letter  from  Thomas  I/orkin  to  Sir  Thomas 
Pickering,  dated  "this  last  of  June,  1613."  Court  and  Times  of  James 
I,  1848,  Vol.  i,  p.  253. 

Winwood's  Memorials,  III,  469.  A  letter  of  July  12,  1613,  refers  to 
the  burning  of  the  theater  and  the  play  Henry  VIII. 

Howe's  continuation  of  Stowe's  Chronicles,  p.  1003,  also  refers  to 
the  fire  and  the  play  Henry  VIII. 

Reliquite  Wottoniancz,  1675,  pp.  425-6.  A  letter  by  Sir  Henry  Wot- 
ton to  his  nephew  dated  July  6,  1613,  contains  an  account  of  the  play. 
'The  King's  players  had  anew  play,  called  All  is  True,  representing 
'  some  principal  pieces  of  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth,  which  was 
'  set  forth  with  many  extraordinary  circumstances  of  pomp  and  majesty, 
'  even  to  the  matting  of  the  stage ;  the  Knights  of  the  Order,  with 
'their  Georges  and  Garter,  the  guards  with  their  embroidered  coats, 
'  and  the  like ;  sufficient  in  truth,  within  a  while,  to  make  great- 
'  ness  very  familiar,  if  not  ridiculous.  Now,  King  Henry  making  a 
'  mask  at  the  Cardinal  Wolsey's  house,  and  certain  cannons  being  shot 
'  off  at  his  entry,  some  of  the  paper  or  other  stuff  wherewith  one  of 
'  them  was  stopped,  did  light  on  the  thatch  " — etc. 

4  Fletcher,  too,  if  one  of  the  authors,  had  written  many  plays  for 
the  King's  men  before  1613,  and  wrote  many  after  that. 

6  Shakspere  bought  a  house  in  Blackfriars,  March,  1613.  See  H.  P. 
Outlines  I,  220. 

37 


play.  Wotton  calls  it  a  new  play.  The  title,  All  is  One,  is 
alluded  to  three  times  in  the  prologue. *  The  play  also  contains 
"some  principal  pieces  of  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Eighth,"  and 
these  may  fairly  be  said  to  be  "  set  forth  with  extraordinary 
circumstance  of  pomp  and  majesty. "  2  It  also  contains  Knights 
of  the  Order  and  guards8  and  a  masque  of  King  Henry's  at 
Cardinal  Wolsey's,  in  which  chambers  are  discharged.4  These 
resemblances  increase  the  probabiHty  that  the  play  in  the  folio 
was  the  play  of  1613. 

Nevertheless,  Mr.  Halli well- Phillips5  and  Mr.  Fleay  in  his 
Life  of  Shakspere*  have  insisted  that  the  plays  were  not  the 
same.  The  main  reason  for  their  opinion,  which  is  shared  by 
others,  is  found  in  an  interpretation  of  a  poem  which  describes 
the  burning  of  the  theater.  They  think  the  allusion  in  this 
poem  to  the  fool  indicates  that  there  was  a  fool  in  the  1613 
play,  and  as  there  is  no  fool  in  the  folio  play,  the  two  must  be 
different  plays.  The  allusion  seems  to  me  likely  to  refer  to 
some  member  of  the  company  who  usually  played  the  fool,  or 
it  may  be  a  general  allusion  with  no  specific  reference.  Even 
if  it  refers  to  a  fool  in  the  entertainment  of  June  29,  1613,  we 
need  not  conclude  that  the  fool  was  a  regular  member  of  the 
dramatis  personse  of  the  play.  Fools  who  performed  between 
the  acts  or  after  the  play  were  common.  The  reference,  then, 
is  at  best  doubtful  and  by  no  means  sufficient  to  contradict  the 
evidence  already  noted,  which  favors  the  identity  of  the  folio 
and  1613  plays.7 

Moreover,  those  who  think  Shakspere  wrote  a  part  of  the 
play  now  universally  consider  it  one  of  his  later  productions, 
and  this  is  in  harmony  with  the  1613  date.  Furthermore,  the 
play  can  hardly  be  earlier  than  1611  because  of  the  reference 
to  the  strange  Indian,8  and  surely  not  earlier  than  1607  because 

1  Lines  9,  18,  and  21. 

^e.  £-.,  note  the  stage  directions,  II,  4;   IV,  i. 

3 See  dramatis  personae. 

4  I,  4.  Stage  direction  after  1  48:  "  Drum  and  Trumpet,  chambers 
discharged." 

*>  Outlines,  I,  310-311.     11,290-292. 

6  pp.  250,  251.  Mr.  Fleay,  however,  seems  to  have  changed  this  opin- 
ion, for  in  his  Chronicle  of  the  Drama,  II,  193,  he  dates  Shakspere's 
part  of  Henry  VIII  about  1611,  and  says  :  "  Probably  completed  by 
Fletcher,  and  produced  as  a  new  play  1613  at  the  Globe."  So  I  judge 
he  now  thinks  the  folio  play  the  same  as  the  1613  play. 

7The  fact  that  the  "matting  of  the  stage"  mentioned  in  Wotton 's 
account  is  not  mentioned  in  the  folio  play, — and  the  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  shilling  alluded  to  in  the  prologue  and  the  usual  price  at 
the  Globe  (2d)  hardly  seem  important  considerations. 

8See  H.  P.  Outlines,  II,  294.  Five  Indians  were  brought  to  England 
in  1611,  and  one  of  great  stature  was  exhibited.  This  "  strange  Indian  " 
of  the  play  (V.  4,  34)  has  suggested  many  conjectures.  To  identify  him 
with  the  "dead  Indian"  of  the  Tempest  is  funny  enough,  but  Mr. 
Boyle's  interpretation  is  surely  the  most  astonishing  of  all.  He  mis- 

38 


of  the  reference  to  Virginia.1  In  short  everything  points  to  the 
identity  of  the  play  in  the  folio  with  the  play  at  the  burning  of 
the  Globe.  It  is  possible  that  the  two  may  be  different  just  as 
it  is  perfectly  possible  to  question  almost  eyery  accepted  fact 
of  Elizabethan  stage  history;  but  there  is  no  definite  evidence 
to  controvert  the  considerable  definite  evidence  that  the  Henry 
VIII  si  the  folio  was  first  acted  in  1613. 

Authorship.  The  only  external  evidence  that  the  play  is 
Shakspere's  is  its  place  in  the  folio  of  1623.  The  folio  editors 
are  not  to  be  trusted  on  questions  of  authorship,  for  they  cer- 
tainly included  some  plays  not  wholly  Shakspere's  and  omitted 
others  in  which  he  had  a  part;  but  it  is  not  certain  that  they 
included  any  play  in  which  he  did  not  have  a  share.  In 
i623,2  if  no  part  of  the  play  was  by  Shakspere  his  fellow 
actors  must  have  known  it,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  imagine 
that  they  would  have  placed  it  in  the  folio. 

Mr.  Spedding's  Essay  in  1850  conclusively  proved  that  there 
were  two  authors  of  the  play  and  that  the  second  was  Fletcher. 
His  essay  has  been  substantiated  by  many  later  investigators 
and  has  been  somewhat  generally  accepted.  The  various  verse- 
tests  all  show  two  distinct  styles,  one  very  like  Fletcher's  and 
one  very  like  Shakspere's  later  style. 

Fletcher's  share  is  doubted  by  no  one  who  has  systemati- 
cally studied  his  versification,  and  Mr.  Boyle's  theory8  that 
Massinger  wrote  the  Shaksperean  part  is  certainly  not  well 
proved.  While  we  shall  keep  this  and  other  theories  in  mind, 
we  shall  start  with  Mr.  Spedding's  division  of  the  play  between 
Shakspere  and  Fletcher,4  which  seems  to  me  reasonably  con- 
clusive. 

I,et  us  see,  then,  what  warrant  there  is  from  this  division 
for  supposing  the  play  to  have  been  written  in  direct  collabora- 

understands  an  obscene  allusion,  and  thinks  "the  word  (tool)  was  evi- 
dently meant  for  a  proper  name,"  and  identifies  it  with  the  Irishman 
O'Toole  in  Middleton's  Fair  Quarrel,  IV,  4.  Thus,  he  fixes  the  date 
of  the  play  as  late  as  1617.  N.  S.  S.  Transactions,  1880-86,  p.  464.  Series 
I,  8-10. 

*V.  5,  51-53- 

2  Those  who  think  the  play  was  not  by  Shakspere  date  it  later  than 
1613. 

3N.  S.  S.  Transactions  1880-86,  p.  493,  seq.  Boyle  also  gives  Mas- 
singer  some  scenes  generally  assigned  to  Fletcher.  The  difficulty  with 
any  such  theory  is  in  proving  that  any  other  dramatist  wrote  in  Shak- 
spere's characteristic  manner.  Mr.  Boyle  assumes  this  off  hand  in  the 
case  of  Massinger.  "  From  the  characteristics  of  meter  alone  it  would 
be  difficult  to  decide  whether  a  particular  passage,  or  even  play,  was 
written  by  Shakspere  or  Massinger,  so  similar  is  the  latter's  style  to 
that  of  Shakspere's  later  dramas."  This  assumption  seems  to  me 
contrary  to  fact ;  and  any  theory  based  on  it  is  a  priori,  of  doubtful 
value. 

4 Shakspere:  Act  I,  sc.  i,  2;  Act  II,  sc.  3,  4;  Act  III,  sc.  2  (to  exit 
of  King) ;  Act  V,  sc.  i.  The  rest  by  Fletcher. 

39 


tion.  Shakspere  was  probably  in  L,ondon  in  1613,  and  was 
still  connected  with  the  King's  men.1  Fletcher  was  a  promi- 
nent and  popular  dramatist  who  had  collaborated  with  Beau- 
mont in  writing  some  very  notable  plays  for  the  King's  men.2 
Beaumont  had  probably  stopped  writing  for  the  King's  men 
by  1612 3  and  Shakspere's  attention  seems  to  have  been  con- 
siderably occupied  with  other  affairs:4  it  seems  perfectly  pos- 
sible and  natural  that  Shakspere  and  Fletcher  should  have 
worked  together. 

Moreover  there  is  no  tangible  evidence  either  of  interpolation 
of  each  other's  work  or  of  revision.  The  play  in  the  folio  is 
divided  into  acts  and  scenes;  five  scenes  and  the  first  half  of  a 
sixth  are  by  Shakspere,  the  rest  by  Fletcher.  On  the  face  of 
things  it  looks  as  if,  after  the  usual  fashion  of  Elizabethan  col- 
laboration, Shakspere  wrote  certain  scenes  and  at  the  same 
time  Fletcher  wrote  certain  others.  The  various  verse-tests, 
as  has  been  noted,  show  that  this  division  is  almost  surely 
accurate. 

The  '  'em-them  '  test  also  presents  further  evidence  on  this 
point.  Taking  Mr.  Spedding's  division  (the  usually  accepted 
one),  I  have  counted  the  ''ems'  and  '  thems '  in  the  play. 
In  the  Winter's  Tale,  Shakspere  uses  37  '  thems  '  and  8  '  'ems; ' 
in  Bonduca,  Fletcher  uses  83  '  'ems  '  and  6  '  thems,'  and  in  the 
Woman's  Prize,  60  '  'ems '  and  4  '  thems ' 5  The  following 
table  will  show  the  results  in  the  Shaksperean  and  Fletcherian 
portions  of  Henry  VIII. 

The  '  'em-them '  test  used  entirely  as  a  supplement  to  the 
other  tests  very  strongly  confirms  the  accepted  division  of  the 
play  between  the  two  authors.  It  also  strongly  confirms  the 

Shakspere's  Part. 


ACT.    SC. 

THEM. 

LINES. 

'EM. 

LINES. 

TOTAL  LINES   IN 
SCENE. 

I.     I. 

4 

8,  9,  25,  30 

2 

34,84 

226 

I.    2. 

5 

32,  37,  46,  62,  94 

2 

21,49 

214 

II.    3- 

0 

O 

108 

II.  4. 

2 

5i,  195 

O 

241 

III.  2a. 

3 

2,  3.  79 

I 

195 

203 

V.  i. 

3 

145,  151,  152. 

0 

176 

Total. 

17 

5 

1168 

1 H.  P.    Outlines  I,  220. 

2  Philaster,  The  Maid's  Tragedy,  A  King  and  No  King,  before  the 
end  of  1611. 

3  No  plays  certainly  by  him  after  1611.     See  p.  10. 

4H.  P.     Outlines  I,  219-220.    Sidney  Lee's  Life  of  Shakspere,  Chap. 

5  See  ante  Chap.  II     The  figures  given  here  represent  the  approxi- 
mate averages. 


4° 


Fletcher's  Part. 


TOTAL  LINES  IN 

ACT.  SC. 

THEM. 

LINES. 

'EM. 

LINES. 

SCENE. 

I-  3- 

o 

7 

4,8,12,13,36,42,43 

68 

I.  4. 

I 

60 

10 

4,8,13,23,44,57,58, 
58,72,77.78,107 

108 

II.  i. 

o 

4 

65,  66,  68,  106 

!69 

II.  2. 

I 

II 

2 

7.39 

141 

III.  I. 

o 

5 

2,35,36>  !05>  158 

184 

III.  2b. 

I 

334 

3 

234,  244,  399 

256  11  203-459 

IV.  i. 

I 

29 

3 

9,  79,  80 

118 

IV.  2. 

o 

3 

147,  149,  150 

172 

V.  2. 

0 

3 

27,  28,  34 

35 

V.  3- 

o 

3 

22,  22,  23 

182 

V.  4. 

o 

13 

7,13,14,14,16,23,32, 
58,59,61,62,67,81 

94  1-70  prose 

V.  5- 

o 

i 

15 

77 

Total. 

4 

57 

1604 

Prologue,  i  them.  Epilogue,  2  'ems.  These  should  perhaps  be  added  to  Fletcher's 
share,  making  the  total  5  thems  and  59  'ems. 

assignment  of  these  parts  to  Shakspere  and  Fletcher,  since 
the  ratio  and  the  total  of  'ems  and  thems  in  the  former's  part 
corresponds  closely  with  his  practice  in  the  Winter's  Tale 
(161  1),  and  the  ratio  and  total  of  'ems  and  thems  in  the  latter  's 
part  corresponds  closely  with  his  practice  in  Bonduca  (before 
1616).  Incidentally,  too,  it  demonstrates  the  worthlessness  of 
Mr.  Boyle's  division  of  the  play  between  Massinger  and 
Fletcher.1 


1  Mr.  Boyle  assigns  all  the  Shakspere  portion,  as  given  in  our  table 
to  Massinger  and  in  addition  I,  4,  1-24,  2  'ems;  I,  4,  64-108,  4  *ems 
II,  i,  1-53,  o  'ems;  II,  i,  137-169,  o  'ems;  IV,  i,  3  'ems  and  i  them. 
V,  3,  1-113,  3  'ems.  This  gives  in  the  total  share  assigned  to  Massin- 
ger, 18  thems  and  17  'ems.  Now  Massinger  as  we  have  seen,  uses  210 
thems  and  not  a  single  'em  in  the  seven  plays  counted.  [See  p.  i  I  ] 
An  examination  of  Mr.  Boyle's  results  also  shows  that  he  thinks  that 
Massinger  not  only  wrote  like  Shakspere,  but  also  very  like  Fletcher, 
for  he  assigns  to  Massinger  some  400  lines  generally  ascribed  to 
Fletcher.  The  '  'em-them  '  test  has  strengthened  the  probability  of 
the  Fletcher  and  Shakspere  divisions  ;  and  a  critic  who  can  make  hay 
of  these  as  does  Mr.  Boyle  must  have  an  extraordinary  notion  of  Mas- 
singer's  faculty  of  varying  his  style. 

Mr.  Oliphant  and  Mr.  Fleay  are  no  more  convincing  in  their  assign- 
ments to  Massinger.  The  former  (Englische  Studien,  15,  326),  gives 
Massinger  II,  i,  I37~end  ;  IV,  i,  1-36;  V,  3,  1-96  (or  V,  2,  35-129; 
scenes  2  and  3  should  perhaps  be  connected).  In  these  162  lines  he 
assigns  7  'ems  and  i  them  to  Massinger,  including  such  Fletcherian 
lines  as  these  (V,  3,  22), 

"Pace  'em  not  in  their  hands  to  make  'em  gentle. 
But  stop  their  mouths  with  stubborn  bits,  and  spur  'em." 

Mr.  Fleay  (Life  Shaks.,  pp.  250,  251)  assigns  I,  i  ;  III,  2,  1-193  5  V,  i, 
to  Massinger,  thus  giving  him  3  'ems. 


Moreover,  an  examination  of  the  table  will  reveal  consider- 
able evidence  that  the  Shakspere  and  Fletcher  parts  are  distinct, 
free  from  interpretations  and  revisions.  There  is  only  one 
scene  (II,  3,)  which  contains  neither  '  'ems'  nor  'thems;'  and 
in  each  of  the  other  scenes  assigned  to  Shakspere  there  is  a 
decided  predominance  of  '  thems, '  while  in  each  scene  of 
Fletcher's  there  is  a  decided  predominance  of  '  'ems.'  We 
find  no  bunching  of  '  'ems  '  after  Fletcher's  manner  in  Shak- 
spere's  part,  and  we  find  only  5  '  'ems  '  in  the  1 168  lines.  This 
does  not  disprove  the  possibility  of  interpolation  or  revision, 
but  it  does  in  connection  with  the  other  tests  point  strongly  to 
the  probability  that  we  have  Shakspere' s  and  Fletcher's  work 
intact. 

Collaboration.  In  the  absence  of  any  distinct  evidence  to 
the  contrary,  we  may  assume  this  probability  as  a  working 
hypothesis  and  see  what  evidence  there  is  in  the  play  itself  of 
direct  collaboration  between  the  two  authors. 

Let  us  see  what  Shakspere  wrote.  Act  I,  scene  i,  is  intro- 
ductory and  expository,  presenting  four  of  the  leading  charac- 
ters, the  King,  Wolsey,  Buckingham,  and  Katharine,  and  car- 
rying the  action  through  the  arrest  of  Buckingham.  Act  I, 
scene  2,  presents  the  trial  of  Buckingham.  Act  II,  scene  3, 
introduces  an  old  lady  and  Anne  Bullen,  who  has  already  been 
introduced  in  the  Fletcherian  part,  and  represents  Anne  as  the 
recipient  of  the  King's  favors;  it  also  prefaces  Katharine's 
fall.  Act  II,  scene  4,  is  the  trial  of  Katharine,  in  which  she, 
the  King,  and  Wolsey  play  the  chief  parts.  Act  III,  scene  2, 
lines  1-203,  is  expository  and  introductory  of  the  fall  of  Wol- 
sey. Act  V.  scene  i,  is  expository  and  introductory  to  the 
birth  of  Elizabeth  and  the  elevation  of  Cranmer — the  two 
events  which  occupy  the  rest  of  the  act. 

To  return  again  to  Mr.  Boyle's  theory  ;  we  have  seen  that  his  assign- 
ment of  the  date  of  the  play  rests  in  part  on  the  amusing  identifica- 
tion of  the  "strange  Indian"  and  "O'Toole,"  that  his  theory  rests 
on  the  exceedingly  questionable  assumption  that  Massinger's  style  is 
very  similar  to  that  of  Shakspere's  later  dramas,  and  finally  that  his 
division  between  the  two  authors  is  simply  untenable.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  consider  his  argument  farther,  but  it  may  be  added  that 
his  main  evidence,  that  of  Massinger's  repetition  and  consequent  par- 
allel passages,  is  at  best  evidence  of  a  very  dangerous  and  misleading 
sort  and  that  Mr.  Boyle  by  no  means  keeps  clear  of  absurdities. 

Mr.  Boyle  himself  advanced  his  theory  with  hesitation,  and  probably 
very  few  have  accepted  it  in  its  entirety.  The  trouble  with  such  a 
theory  is  that  it  gains  a  partial  acceptance  from  its  very  intricacy. 
Critics  say  '  the  theory  is  nonsense,  but  it  may  have  a  germ  of  truth, 
perhaps  Massinger  did  have  something  to  do  with  the  play,'  or 
they  are  incited  to  make  still  another  guess  at  the  authorship.  Thus 
Mr.  Sidney  L,ee  speaks  of  "occasional  aid  from  Massinger"  (Life,  p. 
262),  and  Mr.  Fleay  suggests  Beaumont.  (Chr.  II,  1930  There  is  no 
evidence  for  Massinger  and  about  as  much  likelihood  of  Beaumont  as 
of  Bacon. 

42 


Now  let  us  see  what  Fletcher  wrote.  Act  I,  scene  3,  is 
merely  a  conversation  on  French  fashions  between  gentlemen 
of  the  court  on  their  way  to  Wolsey 's.  Act  I,  scene  4,  presents 
the  masque  at  Wolsey 's  and  for  the  first  time  in  the  play  in- 
troduces Anne  Bullen.  Act  II,  scene  i,  presents  Buckingham 
after  his  trial.  Act  II,  scene  2,  is  introductory  and  expository 
of  Katharine's  fall  and  presents  the  arrival  of  Campeius.  Act 
III,  scene  i,  represents  the  visit  of  the  Cardinals  to  the  for- 
saken Katharine.  Act  III,  scene  2,  from  line  203  to  the  end, 
represents  Wolsey 's  fall  and  his  farewell  scene  with  Cromwell. 
Act  IV,  scene  i,  represents  the  coronation  of  Anne  Bullen. 
Act  IV,  scene  2,  represents  Katharine,  sick  and  forsaken, 
making  her  last  farewell.  Act  V,  scenes  2  and  3,  represent 
Cranmer's  elevation.  Act  V,  scene  IV,  is  devoted  to  a  comic 
porter  and  the  crowd  pressing  at  the  doors.  *  Act  V,  scene  5, 
brings  the  play  to  the  conclusion  with  the  christening  of  Eliza- 
beth and  Cranmer's  prophecy. 

The  play  deals  with  the  introduction,  fall,  and  farewell  of 
Buckingham,  of  Wolsey,  and  of  Katharine  ;  and  with  the  rise, 
elevation,  and  farewell  of  Anne  Bullen  and  of  Cranmer.  Fol- 
lowing this  analysis  we  find  that  Shakspere  introduced  Buck- 
ingham, Wolsey,  and  Katharine,  and  described  the  downfall 
of  Buckingham  and  Katharine,  while  Fletcher  described  the 
fall  of  Wolsey  and  the  farewells  of  all  three.  Fletcher  intro- 
duced the  story  of  Anne  Bullen,  Shakspere  shared  in  its  de- 
velopment, and  Fletcher  carried  it  to  its  spectacular  conclusion 
in  the  coronation  and  christening  scenes.  Fletcher  introduced 
the  Cranmer  story  (IV,  i);  Shakspere  developed  it  up  to  the 
point  of  the  main  situation,  which  with  Cranmer's  farewell 
was  written  by  Fletcher. 

Thus  each  writer  shared  in  each  of  the  five  main  actions. 
Shakspere's  work,  though  largely  expository,  includes  the  trial 
scene  of  Katharine;  Fletcher's  work,  while  including  the  main 
scenes  and  situations,  also  includes  introductory  matter  for 
which  Shakspere  supplied  the  dramatic  development.  On  the 
whole,  then,  it  seems  improbable  that  Shakspere  would  have 
written  parts  of  the  five  main  stories  and  left  them  all  un- 
finished. On  the  contrary,  it  seems  probable  that  he  had  the 
general  course  of  each  of  the  main  actions  well  in  mind  when 
he  wrote.  The  most  natural  conjecture,  it  seems  to  me,  is  that 
a  historical  and  spectacular  play  was  planned  (perhaps  by 
Shakspere)  dealing  with  these  five  main  events.  The  play 
was  undertaken  in  collaboration  between  Shakspere  and 
Fletcher;  each,  after  the  manner  of  Elizabethan  collaborators, 
undertaking  certain  scenes.  Shakspere  may  have  intended 

1  Compare  MaicPs  Tragedy:  I,  2,  (noted  by  Boyle)  and  Four  Plays. 
Induction. 

43 


to  do  more  than  he  did  do,  he  may  have  been  prevented 
by  some  cause  from  carrying  on  a  situation  which  he  had  intro- 
duced and  may,  therefore,  have  turned  that  work  over  to 
Fletcher;  but  I  see  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Shakspere  first 
wrote  his  part  as  we  have  it  and  stopped  there.  It  seems  to 
me  unlikely  that  any  dramatist  should  begin  a  play  in  that 
way — beginning  three  different  actions,  taking  up  two  in  the 
middle,  and  finishing  none. 

In  this  instance  I  am  at  odds  with  the  weight  of  authority; 
but  on  the  other  hand  there  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  priori  a 
likelihood  of  direct  collaboration.  To  my  mind  the  distinct 
separation  between  the  Fletcherian  and  Shaksperean  parts,  the 
probability  that  there  is  little  or  no  revision  of  Shakspere  by 
Fletcher,  and  the  content  of  each  man's  work,  all  argue  against 
the  theory  that  Fletcher  finished  a  play  which  Shakspere  began 1 
and  support  the  a  priori  probability'of  collaboration  pure  and 
simple. 

To  sum  up  the  conclusions  of  our  discussion  :  Henry  VIII 
was  probably  first  acted  at  the  Globe  theater  June  29,  1813, 
and  was  probably  written  shortly  before  that  time  by  Shak- 
spere and  Fletcher.  The  '  'em-them '  test  corroborates  the  usual ' 
verse-tests  in  separating  their  work  distinctly,  and  the  most 
natural  conclusion  from  an  examination  of  their  shares  seems 
to  be  that  they  worked  in  direct  collaboration. 

THE   TWO  NOBLE  KINSMEN. 

Date.  First  quarto,  1634.  "Presented  at  the  Blackfriars 
by  the  King's  Maiesties  servants,  with  great  applause:  written 
by  the  memorable  worthies  of  their  time,  Mr.  John  Fletcher^ 
and  Mr.  William  Shakspeare,  Gent."  It  was  entered  S.  R. 
April  3,  1634  for  John  Waterson. 

Mr.  Fleay,  who  formerly  had  an  elaborate  theory  dating  the 
play  in  i625,2  notes  in  his  Chronicle  of  the  Drama  that  the  play 
must  date  about  1610. 

The  date  seems  to  me  fixed  with  reasonable  certainty  from 
the  borrowing  of  an  anti-masque  from  Beaumont's  Masque  of 
the  Inner  Temple  and  Gray's  fnn,  presented  Feb.  20,  i6i3.3 

The  description  of  this  dance  in  the  Masque  is  as  follows: 
"The  second  Anti-masque  rush  in,  dance  their  measure,  and 
"as  rudely  depart;  consisting  of  a  Pedant,  May  lyord,  May 
"Lady;  Servingman,  Chambermaid;  a  Country  Clown  or 
"Shepherd,  Country  Wench;  an  Host,  Hostess;  a  He-Baboon, 
"She-Baboon;  a  He-Fool,  She-Fool,  ushering  them  in.  All 

1See  Mr.  Spedding's  ingenious  theory  to  this  effect.  N.  S.  S. 
Transactions,  1874. 

2 Life  of  Shaks.  p.  189,  seq. 

3 See  The  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  ed.  Harold  lattledale,  N.  S.  S. 
Series  II,  I,  8,  15.  Condon,  1876-1885.  Introduction,  pp.  54,  55. 

44 


"  these  persons,  apparelled  to  the  life,  Men  issuing  out  of  one 
"side  of  the  boscage,  and  the  Women  from  the  other.  The 
"music  was  extremely  well-fitted,  having  such  a  spirit  of 
"  country  jollity,  as  can  hardly  be  imagined;  but  the  perpetual 
' '  laughter  and  applause  was  above  the  music. ' ' l 

Now  this  masque  was  exceedingly  well  received.  "The 
"dance  likewise  was  of  the  same  strain;  and  the  dancers,  or 
"rather  actors,  expressed  everyone  their  part  so  naturally 
"  and  aptly,  as  when  a  man's  eye  was  caught  with  this  one, 
' '  and  then  passed  on  to  the  other,  he  could  not  satisfy  himself 
"  which  did  best.  It  pleased  his  Majesty  to  call  for  it  again 
"  at  the  end,  as  he  did  likewise  for  the  first  Anti-masque;  but 
' '  one  of  the  Statues  by  that  time  was  undressed. ' ' 

Moreover,  this  anti-masque  was  a  decided  innovation.2  In 
preceding  anti-masques,  which  had  been  in  vogue  only  since 
1608,  the  costumes  of  the  dancers  had  all  been  of  one  sort,  as 
in  the  dance  of  satyrs  in  Jonson's  Masque  of  Oberon.  Beau- 
.  mont  first  introduced  the  fashion  of  having  various  characters 
and  costumes.  Moreover,  as  Dr.  Soergel  has  also  pointed  out, 
instead  of  mere  "  antic  gesticulation  "  the  dancers  also  in  their 
mimickery  now  showed  a  kind  of  dramatic  action;  thus  they 
are  called  "dancers,  or  rather  actors."  The  innovation  in 
varying  characters  and  costumes  is  alluded  to  in  the  introduc- 
tion to  the  Masque*  and  in  a  description  of  it  in  Stow's  Annals .4 

In  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen  (III.  5)  this  anti-masque  is  re- 
peated. The  schoolmaster  and  his  troop  are  introduced  into 
the  action,  they  meet  the  mad  daughter  of  the  jailor  and  they 
dance  before  Theseus  and  his  lords  and  ladies.  The  connec- 
tion with  Beaumont's  anti-masque  is,  however,  unmistakable. 

The  schoolmaster  thus  introduces  the  dancers: 

"  I  first  appeare,  though  rude,  and  raw,  and  muddy, 
To  speak  before  thy  noble  grace,  this  tenner 
At  whose  great  feete  I  offer  up  my  penner. 

1  Works  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.     Ed.  Routledge,  II,  688. 

2 Die  Englischen  Maskenspiele.     Soergel,  1882,  p.  52. 

3 "Then  Mercury  for  his  part,  brings  forth  an  anti-masque  all  of 
spirits  or  divine ;  but  yet  not  of  one  kind  or  livery  (because  that  had 
been  so  much  in  use  heretofore)  but,  as  it  were,  in  consort,  like  to 
broken  music"  .  .  .  [this  dance]  giveth  fit  occasion  to  new  and 
strange  varieties  both  in  the  music  and  paces."  This  was  the  first 
anti-masque  (four  Naiades,  five  Hyades,  four  Cupids,  and  four  statues 
of  gold  and  silver).  The  dance  copied  in  the  play  is  described  as  "a 
May  dance,  or  rural  dance,  consisting  likewise  not  of  any  suited  per- 
sons, but  of  a  confusion  or  commixture  of  all  such  persons  as  are 
natural  and  proper  for  country  sports.  This  is  the  second  anti-masque." 

^Stow.  p.  917.  The  first  anti-masque  is  described  as  "of  a  strange 
and  different  fashion  from  the  others,  both  in  habit  and  manners,  and 
very  delectable  ;"  and  the  second,  "  a  rurall  or  country  mask,  consist- 
ing of  many  persons,  men  and  women,  being  all  in  sundry  habits,  being 
likewise  as  strange,  variable,  and  delightful." 


UNIVERSITY 


The  next  the  Lord  of  May,  and  Lady  bright, 
The  Chambermaid,  and  Servingman  by  night 
That  seeke  out  silent  hanging ;  Then  mine  Host 
And  his  fat  Spouse,  that  welcomes  to  their  cost 
The  gauled  Traveller,  and  with  a  beckning 
Informes  the  Tapster  to  inflame  the  reckning ; 
Then  the  beast  eating  Clowne.  and  next  the  foole, 
The  Bavian1  with  long  tayle,  and  eke  long  toole. 
Cum  multis  aliijs  that  make  a  dance 
Say  I,  and  all  shall  presently  advance."  2 

Not  only  are  all  these  the  same  personages  which  appear  in 
Beaumont's  Masque ;  in  the  play  as  in  the  masque  they  per- 
form a  country  May-dance.8 

There  can  be  but  one  conclusion  from  this  resemblance. 
The  anti-masque,  probably  performed  by  actors  from  the  public 
companies,  was  an  entirely  novel  and  very  successful  part  of 
Beaumont' §  Masque  of  the  Inner  Temple;  and  it  is  inconceivable 
that  this  anti-masque  should  have  been  introduced  into  that 
notable  court  entertainment  after  having  been  staled  at  the 
public  theaters.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  entirely  probable  that 
Fletcher  introduced  into  his  play  a  variation  of  a  dance  which 
had  won  a  great  success  in  a  court  masque.  It  is  also  probable 
that  he  used  this  anti-masque  shortly  after  the  court  entertain- 
ment while  the  novelty  and  success  of  this  dance  were  common 
talk.  A  few  years  later,  other  anti-masques  would  have  been 
performed  at  the  theater.4 

There  is  no  evidence  to  contradict  this  evidence  for  a  1613 
date.6  Mr.  Fleay  notes  that  "from  1626  to  1639  Waterson 
[publisher  of  the  first  quarto  of  1634]  published  plays,  and 
whenever  he  enters  the  author's  name  does  so  correctly,"  6  and 


1 "  Baviau.  Babion  {Cynthia's  Revels ,  I,  i),  or  Babian,  a  man  dressed 
upas  a  baboon."  Littledale.  "  Bavian,  a  figure  in  Morris  dance  dressed 
as  baboon."  Dyce.  The  comparison  between  this  passage  and  the 
masque,  of  course  indicates  that  '  Bavian  '  is  the  baboon.  Yet  Mr. 
Fleay  (Chr.  I,  192)  says:  "the  Bavian  (Batavian)  of  III,  5,  is  surely 
the  same  as  "the  strange  Indian"  of  Henry  8,  V,  3,  1613,  and  the 
'  Cataian  of  strange  nature  '  of  Ram  Alley,  c  1609." 

2  III,  5.     Littledale's  reprint  of  the  quarto. 

3  The  schoolmaster  calls  the  dance  a  Morris  and  asks  for  a  May  pole. 

4  The  actors,  too,  who  performed  at  court  were  probably  utilized  in 
the  performance  at  the  theater. 

5 In  Emilia's  speech  over  the  two  pictures,  she  says  of  Arcite,  (IV, 

2,43) 

"  Thou  art  a  changling  to  him,  a  mere  gipsy." 

This,  Mr.  Fleay  says  {Chr.  I,  191)  "surely  was  written  after  The 
Changling  and  The  Spanish  Gipsy  were  produced  in  1621."  So  he 
thinks  the  line  points  to  a  late  revision.  It  seems  improbable  that 
there  is  any  reference  to  the  plays. 

6  Waterson  entered  ten  plays  in  these  years  and  assigned  plays  to 
Fletcher,  Massinger,  and  Davenant correctly.  See  Fleay.  Life  Shaks. 
,p.  328,  seq. 


therefore  concludes  that  ' '  he  honestly  repeated  the  informa- 
tion given  him."  Whether  this  information  was  correct  or 
not,  it  indicates  that  the  play  was  thought  to  have  been 
written  before  Shakspere's  retirement  from  London.  If  the 
inscription  on  the  title  page  is  correct,  1613  is  the  most  probable 
date  for  Shakspere's  work  and  it  is  also  a  probable  date  for 
Fletcher's  collaboration  since  Beaumont  apparently  ceased 
writing  with  him  in  I6H-I2.1 

Mr.  Littledale's  conjecture,  then,  that  the  play  dates  shortly 
after  the  performance  of  the  masque  (Feb.  20,  1613),  is  almost 
certainly  correct.2 

Authorship.  The  only  external  evidence  that  Shakspere  and 
Fletcher  wrote  the  play  is  the  explicit  statement  of  the  quarto 
of  1634.  The  publisher  Waterson  seems  to  have  been  trust- 
worthy, and  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  in  1634  Shak- 
spere's name  would  have  helped  to  sell  a  play  of  Fletcher's 
whose  plays  had  not  then  been  collected  in  a  folio.  The  main 
external  evidence  against  Shakspere's  authorship  is  the  fact 
that  the  play  does  not  appear  in  the  folio  of  1623,  but  Pericles 
was  also  omitted  and  Troilus  and  Cressida  irregularly  inserted. 
In  1691,  Langbaine  gave  the  authorship  as  stated  in  the 
quarto  of  1634,  and  there  is  no  direct  external  evidence  against 
it. 

No  one  now  questions  Fletcher's  authorship,8  but  the  author- 
ship of  the  non-Fletcherian  portion  of  the  play  is  still  a  much 
vexed  question.  It  is  a  question  which  probably  will  always 
remain  a  matter  of  opinion,  for  it  does  not  admit  of  complete 
demonstration.  So  far  as  Shakspere's  authorship  can  be  de- 
monstrated, Mr.  Littledale  has  accomplished  the  task,  and 
one's  opinion  on  the  subject  can  rest  on  no  better  authority. 

Proceeding  on  the  hypothesis  that  Shakspere  and  Fletcher 
were  the  authors,  we  find  that  the  division  of  the  play  between 


Englische 


1  Mr.  Oliphant  has  an  astonishing  comment  on  this  point. 
Studien,  15,  p.  326.     "  If,  as  is  likely,  Fletcher's 

"  sure  he  cannot 

Be  so  unmanly  as  to  leave  me  here! 
If  he  do,  maids  will  not  so  easily 
Trust  men  again."  T.  N.  K.  II,  5. 

be  a  gird  at  Beaumont's 

"  if  he  deceive  me  thus 
A  woman  will  not  easily  trust  a  man." 

Coxcomb,  I,  5. 

it  is  not  improbable  that  Fletcher's  alliance  with  Shakspere  followed 
a  quarrel  with  his  old  friend."  One  may  safely  assure  Mr.  Oliphant 
that  it  is  not  a  gird. 

2  The  borrowing  of  the  anti-masque  and  the  consequent  determina- 
tion of  the  date  of  the  play  are  important  in  connection  with  my  con- 
jecture in  regard  to  the  dance  of  satyrs  in  the  Winter's  Tale.  See'p.  32. 

3Delius  (Jahrbuch,  XIII)  attributed  the  play  to  an  unknown  author. 

47 


the  two  presents  matry  difficulties.  Confident  though  we 
be  that  many  passages  are  by  Shakspere,  there  are  other  pas- 
sages, as  in  the  case  of  almost  any  of  his  plays,  which  are  not 
saliently  characteristic.  Moreover  the  parts  are  by  no  means 
as  distinct  as  in  Henry  VIII ;  but  in  the  Shaksperean  scenes 
there  are  sometimes  indubitable  bits  of  Fletcher's  work,  and 
in  the  Fletcherian  scenes  one  sometimes  suspects  Shakspere' s 
touch. 

Nevertheless,  the  different  verse-tests  have  shown  that  cer- 
tain scenes  possess  the  metrical  characteristics  of  Shakspere' s 
later  work  and  certain  other  scenes,  the  entirely  different  char- 
acteristics of  Fletcher's  versification.  The  ''em-them'  test 
also  confirms  the  generally  accepted  division.  In  applying 
this  test  I  have  followed  Mr.  Littledale's  division,  but  some 
details  must  be  noted.  The  last  forty  lines  of  Act  V,  scene  3, 
Mr.  Littledale  thinks  Fletcher  had  a  hand  in,1  and  there  can 
be  little  question  of  it;  these  lines,  therefore,  I  have  not  in- 
cluded in  Shakspere' s  part.  The  last  twenty  lines  of  Act  I, 
scene  4,  are  credited  by  Mr.  Littledale,  together  with  the  rest 
of  the  scene,  to  Shakspere;  but  in  these  lines  there  seem  to  be 
sure  indications  of  Fletcher. 

"Then  like  men  use  'em 
The  very  lees  of  such,  millions  of  rates 
Exceeds  the  wine  of  others :  all  our  surgions 
Convent  in  their  behoofs,  our  richest  balmes, 
Rather  than  niggard,  wast:    Theire  lives  concerne  us 
Much  more  than  Thebs  is  worth ;  rather  than  have  'em 
Freed  of  this  plight,  and  in  their  morning  state, 
Sound  and  at  liberty,  I  would  'em  dead  ; 
But,  forty  thousand  fold,  we  had  rather  have  'em 
Prisoners  to  us  than  death."  2 

The  use  of  'em  in  this  passage  is  a  sure  indication  of  Fletcher, 
and  the  versification  looks  as  if  he  had  a  hand  in  it.  The 
remaining  dozen  lines  sound  more  like  Shakspere,  but  the 
whole  passage  seems  at  least  retouched  or  interpolated  by 
Fletcher. 

These  two  passages  which  show  definite  signs  of  Fletcher's 
manner  will  be  kept  from  Shakspere' s  part.8  The  two  prose 
scenes  will  also  be  noted  apart;  for,  although  they  are  gener- 
ally assigned  to  Shakspere,  there  are  of  course,  no  scientific 
tests  as  in  the  case  of  verse.  Other  scenes,  in  which  Mr.  Little- 
dale  thinks  Shakspere' s  work  has  been  retouched  by  Fletcher, 
or  in  which  (I,  2,)  Mr.  Hickson  thinks  that  Fletcher's  work 
was  revised  by  Shakspere,  are  left  intact  as  in  Mr.  Littledale' s 

1See  Littledale.     Introduction,  p.  66. 

21,4,28-37. 

3 The  first  17  lines  of  V,  I,  are  almost  surely  by  Fletcher,  and  so  as- 
signed by  Littledale.  There  are  also  some  evidence  of  Fletcher  in  11 
1-37  of  I,  i. 

48 


table.     This  is  necessary  because  the  critics  have  not  settled 
on  definite  passages  as  interpolations  or  divisions. 
Shakspere's  Part. 


THEM. 

LINES. 

'EM. 

LINES. 

TOTAL  LINES. 

I.  I. 

4 

50,  76,  146,  195 

2 

59.  H4 

235 

I.    2. 

I 

32 

I 

34 

116 

I-    3- 

2 

21,41 

I 

22 

97 

I.  4a. 

3 

7,  17,  20 

0 

28    1-28 

III.  i. 

2 

52,52 

0 

123      _«J 

III.    2. 

I 

15 

O 

38 

V.   ib.        2 

105,  108 

O 

156  17-173 

V.  3  a. 

O 

O 

104 

V.  4. 

O 

I 

12 

137 

Total. 

15 

5 

1034 

Fletchers  Part. 


NUMBER  LINES 

THEM. 

LINES. 

'EM. 

LINES. 

IN  SCENE. 

I.  5- 

o 

O 

6F1.  (?) 

II.    2. 

O 

10 

12,  13,  17,  24,  34,  65, 
129,  251,  265,  274. 

279 

II.    3. 

0 

I 

2. 

83 

II.  4- 

0 

O 

33 

II.  5. 

o 

0 

64 

II.  6. 

o 

o 

39 

HI.  3- 

I 

23 

o 

54 

III.  4. 

o 

o 

26 

III.  5- 

o 

I 

I52. 

159 

III.  6. 

0 

10 

183,  189,  190,  213,  219, 
223,251,253,277,288. 

308 

IV.  i. 

o 

12,   102 

3 

89,  100,  124. 

150 

IV.    2. 

I 

72 

ii 

25,  40,  65,  66,  69,  114, 
J33,  *34,  143.  149»  T52. 

156 

V.   i  a. 

o 

2 

i,  7- 

17  11  1-17 

V.    2. 

o 

0 

112 

Total. 

4 

38 

I486 

Passages  retouched  by  Fletcher. 


THEM. 

LINES. 

'EM. 

LINES. 

NUMBER  LINES 
IN  SCENE. 

I.  4b. 

I 

38 

5 

29,  33,  35,  36,  37- 

21    11   28-49 

V.  3b. 

0 

2 

128,  133. 

42   11   104-146 

Prose  Scenes. 


THEM. 

LINES. 

'EM. 

LINES. 

II.  I. 

3 

28,  40,  53 

3 

23,    26,   44. 

IV.  3. 

O 

o 

49 


Summary.  The  two  passages  retouched  by  Fletcher  ought, 
perhaps,  to  be  added  to  his  part,  and  the  two  prose  scenes  to 
Shakspere's.  With  the  prose  scenes  Shakspere's  part  would 
contain  18  thems,  8  'ems;  without  the  prose  scenes  15 
thems,  5  'ems.  In  the  Shaksperean  part  of  Henry  VIII  (1168 
lines)  there  are  17  thems  and  5  'ems.1  In  the  Fletcherian 
part  of  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen  with  the  added  passages,  there 
are  5  thems  and  45  'ems;  without  those  two  passages  4  thems 
and  38  'ems.  In  Henry  VIII,  there  are  4  thems  and  57  'ems.2 

The  "em-them'  test  thus  confirms  the  assignment  of  the 
play  to  Shakspere  and  Fletcher  and  the  approximate  accuracy 
of  its  division  between  the  two.  The  test  does  not,  however, 
indicate  that  the  division  by  scenes  is  as  exact  as  in  Henry 
VI IL  The  'ems  and  thems  do  not  happen  to  be  distribu- 
ted evenly  through  the  play,  and  often  none  occur  in  a  scene. 
A  division  entirely  by  scenes,  including  the  prose  scenes  and 
the  passages  revised  or  rewritten  by  Fletcher  in  the  Shak- 
sperean part,  would  give  Shakspere  19  thems  and  15  'ems. 
This  large  number  of  'ems  at  once  suggests  Fletcher's  hand; 
and  furthermore,  the  presence  of  'ems  offers  a  specific  basis 
for  my  conjecture  that  1,4,  28-49  is  retouched  by  Fletcher  and 
confirms  Mr.  Littledale's  suggestions  that  IV,  3,  1-17  is  en- 
tirely by  Fletcher  and  V,  3,  104-146  at  least  revised  by  him. 
Doubtless,  as  Mr.  Littledale  suspects,  other  passages  show 
traces  of  Shakspere's  revision.  The  '  'em-them  '  test  is  also 
serviceable  in  disproving  the  theory  that  Massinger  wrote  the 
non-Fletcherian  part,3  and  there  is  no  evidence  for  any  other 
author  except  Shakspere.4 

*In  Winter's  Taleyj  thems,  8 'ems.  In  the  Tempest 38  thems,  13  'ems. 

2  In  Bonduca  6  thems,  83  'ems. 

3  See  Mr.  Boyle's  papers.     Englische  Studien,  IV,  34,  and  N.  S.  S. 
Transactions  1880-86,  p.  371;     The  non-Fletcherian   part  which  Mr. 
Boyle  gives  to  Massinger  is  as  follows:  I,  i,  4  thems,  2  'ems  ;  I,  2,  34-84, 
i  'em;  I,  3,  2  thems,  i  'em ;  I,  4  and  5,  4  thems  and  5  'ems ;  II,  i,  77- 
118  (including  part  of  II,  2,  according  to  our  notation),  3  thems,  4  'ems  ; 
III,  i,  2  thems  ;  III,  2,  i  them  ;  IV,  3,  none  ;  V,  i,  2  thems,  2  'ems  ;  V, 
3,  2  'ems;  V,  4,  i  'em.     Total  18  thems,  16  'ems.     There  are  'ems  in 
almost  every  scene.     The  presence  of  so  many  'ems  is  enough  to  dis- 
prove  Massinger's   authorship,    unless   Mr.    Boyle's   argument  from 
parallel  passages  appeals  with  very  much  more  force  to  others  than  it 
does  to  me.     The  fixing  of  the  date  at  1613,  in  fact,  destroys  the  main 
basis  for  the  Massinger  argument  which  depended  on  an  assumed  date 
of  about  1626. 

4  Mr.  Fleay  advances  one  argument  for  Beaumont  (Chr.  I,  191,)  from 
the  use  of  carve  which  is  paralleled  in  Beaumont's  Remedy  of  Love. 

IV,  5.     "  Carve  her,  drink  to  her,"  etc. 

Remedy  of  Love.    "  Drink  to  him,  carve  him,  give  him  compliment." 

"This  use  of  carve  is  not  common,"  says  Mr.  Fleay,  but  it  seems 
to  have  been  a  regular  Elizabethan  idiom.  Schmidt's  Lexicon  gives 
two  examples  in  Shakspere  of  this  meaning — "  to  show  great  courtesy 
and  affability." 

See  also  Hamlet  I,  3,  20,  and  Othello  II,  3,  173,  and  Lyly's  Euphues, 
ed.  Arber,  p.  55.  "  I  mean  not  to  be  mine  owne  carver." 

50 


Collaboration.  In  conjecturing  that  the  play  was  written  in 
direct  collaboration  between  Shakspere  and  Fletcher,  we  cannot 
avail  ourselves,  as  in  Henry  VIII,  of  the  argument  that  the 
two  parts  are  distinctly  separated.  At  the  same  time  the 
division  is  fairly  distinct.  The  great  majority  of  Fletcher's 
scenes  were  almost  certainly  written  by  him  alone,  and  Shak- 
spere's  scenes  show  definite  additions  only  at  the  beginnings 
or  ends.  They  show  no  evidence  of  general  revision  by  another 
writer.  Eleven  of  the  scenes  as  marked  in  the  quarto  of  1634, 
seem  to  have  been  mainly  composed  by  Shakspere;  and  thirteen 
scenes,  as  marked  in  the  quarto,  seem  to  have  been  almost 
entirely  the  work  of  Fletcher. 

Moreover,  the  strong  probability  that  the  play  was  first  acted 
in  1613  makes  $a&  prima  facie  likelihood  of  direct  collaboration 
the  same  as  in  the  case  of  Henry  VIIL  In  1612-13  Shak- 
spere seems  to  have  been  occupied  with  other  affairs  as  well  as 
play- writing,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  had  left  London  or 
severed  his  connection  with  the  King's  men.  Fletcher  had  by 
that  time  achieved  eminent  success  through  his  plays  written 
in  collaboration  with  Beaumont  for  the  King's  men  and  by 
1612  was  apparently  no  longer  writing  with  Beaumont.  On 
the  face  of  things  collaboration  between  Shakspere  and  Fletcher 
is  not  at  all  improbable. 

Before  looking  directly  at  the  separate  scenes  for  evidence,  we 
must  note  one  objection  often  urged  against  collaboration.  If 
Shakspere  had  seen  the  finished  play,  he  would  not — so  some 
urge — have  tolerated  the  trash  of  the  underplot.1  It  is  at  least 
probable  that  Shakspere  did  see  the  finished  play  in  1613;  but 
this  probability  aside,  the  underplot  is  certainly  no  greater 
trash  than  that  of  Pericles  which  he  managed  to  endure.  The 
conception  that  Shakspere  acted  as  a  schoolmaster  and  Fletcher 
as  a  pupil,  has  no  foundation  whatever.  Even  if  Shakspere 
planned  the  play,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  would 
have  dictated  to  the  younger  poet. 

The  feeling  that  Shakspere  would  not  have  tolerated  the 
underplot  is,  however,  accentuated  by  the  supposition  that  this 
underplot  contains  imitations,  and  very  poor  ones,  of  Holofernes 
in  Love' s  Labour' s  Lost*  and  Ophelia  in  Hamlet?  In  respect  to 
Holofernes,  I  do  not  think  there  was  any  imitation  in  mind. 
The  scene  exhibiting  the  schoolmaster  and  his  troop  of  enter- 
tainers received  its  suggestion  from  the  Masque  of  the  Inner 
Temple,  as  we  have  seen,  and  probably  not  at  all  from  so  old  a 
play  as  Love' s  Labour' s  Lost.  In  fact,  if  we  want  to  go  back 
to  the  original  of  the  situation  of  a  schoolmaster  arranging 
a  May-day  entertainment,  we  must  go  back  at  least  as  early  as 

1See  Lattledale.     Introduction. 

2T.  N.  K.  Ill,  5. 

3  See  the  scenes  in  which  the  jailer's  daughter  appears. 

51 


Sir  Philip  Sidney's  May  Lady,  1578,  when  the  pedant  Rombus 
appears.  In  the  same  way,  the  inad  girl  with  her  songs  and 
childish  talk  was  a  conventional  stage  character,  appearing 
in  Lyly's  the  Woman  in  the  Moon,  the  original  Hamlet,  and 
Hoffman  as  well  as  the  final  Hamlet. 

The  case  here,  however,  is  different  from  that  of  the  school- 
master. Hamlet  was  a  popular  play,  and  the  situation  of 
Ophelia  must  have  suggested  the  description  of  the  mad  girl 
floating  on  the  water  amid  the  flowers  and  speaking  love  posies 
and  singing  "willow,  willow,  willow."1  We  must,  however, 
note  that  there  is  no  imitation  of  Ophelia's  character,  the  only 
distinct  imitation  is  of  the  circumstances  of  her  death.  Now, 
this  imitation,  so  far  from  being  an  objection  to  collaboration 
seems  to  me  readily  explainable  on  the  supposition  of  collabo- 
ration. Shakspere,  with  his  usual  economy  of  invention 2 
may  have  determined  in  planning  the  play  to  introduce  a  mad 
girl;  and  Fletcher  working  out  the  suggestion  was  fully 
capable  of  doing  the  rest — trash  and  all.  In  spite  of  the 
trash,  the  conversation  of  V,  2,  was  probably  very  pleasing  to 
both  the  groundlings  and  lordlings  of  Blackfriars. 

Returning  to  the  evidence  for  collaboration,  we  must  examine 
the  work  of  each  author.  In  the  underplot  dealing  with  the 
jailer's  daughter,  Shakspere  is  assigned  three  and  Fletcher 
seven  scenes.  Act  II,  scene  i,  by  Shakspere  introduces  the 
jailer,  the  wooer,  and  the  daughter,  who  shows  that  she  is 
already  a  little  in  love  with  the  prisoner  Palamon.  The  next 
scene  by  Shakspere  (III,  2,)  is  a  soliloquy  by  the  daughter 
who  has  freed  Palamon  and  is  seeking  him.  She  is  alone  in 
the  woods  and  fears  lest  she  go  mad.  The  last  scene  of  the 
underplot  by  Shakspere  (IV,  3,)  represents  the  jailer,  wooer, 
and  doctor  consulting  over  a  cure  for  the  girl  who,  it  now  ap- 
pears, is  insane.  The  scene  also  introduces  the  girl  with  mad 
talk  and  songs. 

In  Fletcher's  part  of  the  underplot,  Act  II,  scene  3,  intro- 
duces a  crowd  of  country  people  a-maying.  Act  II,  scene  4,  is 
a  soliloquy  by  the  jailer's  daughter  (introduced  earlier  by 
Shakspere)  who  is  not  yet  mad  and  who  resolves  to  free  Pala- 
mon. Act  II,  scene  5,  is  another  soliloquy  from  which  it  ap- 
pears that  she  is  about  to  free  him.  In  Act  III,  scene  4,  she 
is  insane  (first  suggested  in  Shakspere's  part).  Act  III,  scene 
5,  includes  the  morris  dance  and  another  appearance  of  the 
mad  girl.  Act  IV,  scene  i,  includes  the  description  of  the 
girl's  escape  from  a  watery  grave  and  another  appearance  of 
the  mad  girl.  Act  V,  scene  2,  represents  the  wooer  curing  the 

JT.  N.  K.    IV,  I. 

2 See  William  Shakspere  by  Barrett  Wendell,  1894,  pp.  87,  422  et 
passim. 


girl  of  her  madness  after  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  doctor 
in  Shakspere's  scene. 

Two  things  are  plain  from  this  analysis.  First,  each  writer 
understood  the  outline  of  the  plot,  for  scenes  in  each  part  de- 
pend on  scenes  in  the  other.  Second,  it  is  almost  impossible 
that  Shakspere  should  have  written  his  three  scenes  first  and 
left  the  underplot  in  that  shape,  for  the  scenes  have  neither 
connection  with  each  other  nor  importance  by  themselves. 
The  most  natural  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  the  two  parts 
were  written  by  two  dramatists  who  had  the  plot  well  outlined 
and  each  of  whom  took  certain  scenes  to  write. 

In  the  development  of  the  main  plot,  Shakspere  is  assigned 
eight  scenes  and  Fletcher  five.1  Of  Shakspere's  part  the 
first  four  scenes  of  the  first  act  deal  largely  with  the  widowed 
queens  and  Theseus.  They  serve  also  as  an  introduction  to 
the  main  action,  presenting  all  the  leading  characters  including 
Palamon  and  Arcite.  This  act,  however,  with  the  kneeling 
queens,  the  wedding  masque,  and  the  "funerall  solempnity," 
is  from  a  stage  point  of  view  good  as  a  spectacle  rather  than 
as  an  introduction  to  the  action.  In  Act  III,  scene  i,  Arcite 
(who  has  been  freed  from  prison  in  Fletcher's  part)  and  Pala- 
mon (who  has  escaped  in  Fletcher's  part)  meet  and  arrange 
to  fight.  In  Act  V,  scene  i,  there  are  the  prayers  of  the  two 
kinsmen  and  Emilia  before  the  final  tournament  (the  action 
having  gone  on  to  this  point  in  Fletcher's  scenes).  Here  again 
the  scene  is  spectacular.  In  Act  V,  scene  3,  the  fight  goes  on 
behind  the  arras  while  Emilia  awaits  her  fate;  this  scene  pre- 
senting the  culmination  of  the  main  action.  In  the  next  scene 
(V,  4,)  the  play  is  brought  to  an  end  with  the  rescue  of  Pala- 
mon, the  death  of  Arcite,  and  the  closing  speech  of  Theseus. 

Of  Fletcher's  scenes,  Act  II,  scene  2,  represents  Palamon 
and  Arcite  in  prison,  the  entrance  of  Emilia  in  the  garden, 
the  quarrel  of  the  two  lovers,  and  the  removal  of  Arcite.  This 
is  the  real  beginning  of  the  main  action.  In  Act  II,  scene  3, 
Arcite  is  free  and  about  to  go  to  court.  In  Act  II,  scene  5,  he 
attains  success  there.  In  Act  III,  scene  3,  Arcite  brings  food 
and  files  to  Palamon  (according  to  the  agreement  made  in  the 
Shaksperean  part).  In  Act  III,  scene  6,  the  two  kinsmen  arm 
each  other  and  fight,  whereupon  they  are  interrupted  by  The- 
seus and  his  train,  exposed  to  death  by  Palamon 's  confession, 
and  saved  by  Emilia's  intercession.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  most 
effective  stage  situation  of  the  play.  In  Act  IV,  scene  2,  Emilia 
debates  over  the  pictures  of  her  two  lovers,  and  a  messenger 
describes  the  combatants;  this  scene  preparing  the  way  for  the 
main  action  of  the  last  act  by  Shakspere. 

1 1  omit  I,  5,  (only  6  lines  and  a  song)  because  the  authorship  is  very 
doubtful.  II,  3,  (Fletcher)  deals  with  both  the  main  and  the  under- 
plot. 

53 


From  this  analysis  of  the  main  action  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
scenes  by  one  author  depend  closely  on  those  by  the  other.  So 
intimate  is  this  inter-relation  of  the  two  parts  that  we  safely 
conclude  that  each  author  was  well  acquainted  with  the  plan 
of  the  whole  action  and  the  arrangement  by  scenes  and  situa- 
tions. As  in  the  case  of  the  underplot,  it  is  almost  impos- 
sible that  the  Shaksperean  part  was  written  before  and  inde- 
pendently of  the  Fletcherian  part, 

On  that  supposition  we  should  have  to  believe  that  after 
Shakspere  had  planned  the  play  in  detail  and  written  a  whole 
introductory  act  with  some  elaboration,  he  then  wrote  a  few 
disconnected  and  relatively  unimportant  scenes  for  the  under- 
plot and  one  scene  of  the  main  plot,  the  meeting  of  Palamon 
and  Arcite  in  the  forest,  but  left  the  opening  and  development 
of  the  main  action  untouched.  Then,  leaving  the  further  de- 
velopment of  the  main  action  still  untouched,  we  are  to  sup- 
pose, that  he  went  on  to  finish  with  manifest  elaboration  the 
final  act  in  the  play.  Two  or  three  bits  of  the  underplot,  the 
first  act,  the  last  act,  and  one  intermediate  scene  of  the  main 
action — however  else  the  play  may  have  been  written,  one  feels 
fairly  certain  that  it  was  not  begun  in  this  way. 

The  date,  1613,  indeed  destroys  one  conjecture  often  adopted 
that  the  play  was  left  unfinished  by  Shakspere  at  his  death 
and  was  finished  by  Fletcher  at  a  late  date  in  his  career. l  Our 
examination  of  Shakspere' s  share  of  the  play  makes  it  equally 
improbable  that  Shakspere  planned  and  began  the  play  about 
1 6 10,  and  for  some  reason  turned  it  over  in  its  incomplete  form 
to  Fletcher  who  completed  it.  Fletcher  does,  indeed,  seem  to 
have  made  some  additions  and  in  some  places  to  have  retouched 
Shakspere's  work.  He  may,  probably  enough,  have  given 
the  final  touches  to  the  play.  Moreover  in  a  play  which  was 
still  popular  in  1634  and  which  had  therefore  been  in  the  stock 
of  the  King's  men  for  twelve  years  of  Fletcher's  life  and  for 
nine  years  after  his  death,  there  is  a  manifest  possibility  that 
the  text  was  subject  to  some  alteration  and  revision. 

The  part  assigned  to  Shakspere  is,  however,  with  the  ex- 
ceptions of  these  possible  alterations,  definitely  marked  off  by 
the  scenes  of  the  first  quarto.  The  scenes  which  Shakspere 
wrote  show  a  knowledge  of  the  whole  course  of  the  dramatic 
action.  They  are,  however,  entirely  disconnected  by  them- 
selves but  are  closely  connected  with  some  of  Fletcher's  scenes. 
Still  further,  each  scene  by  itself  is  complete  and  elaborate, 
utterly  unlike  unfinished  work.  It  does  not  seem  possible, 
therefore,  that  these  scenes  represent  a  play  which  he  had 
begun  and  left  thus  unfinished.  Fletcher's  scenes  in  the  same 
way  are  disconnected  except  when  taken  in  connection  with 
Shakspere's;  and  each  one  in  itself  is  complete  and  well  elabo- 

JSee  Dyce. 

54 


rated.  These  considerations  make  it  probable  that,  after  having 
made  a  fairly  detailed  outline  of  the  play,  each  writer  took 
certain  scenes  and,  to  all  intents,  completed  those  scenes  after 
his  own  fashion.  As  in  Henry  VIII,  the  method  of  composi- 
tion seems  to  have  been  collaboration,  pure  and  simple. 

CARDENIO. 

It  was  entered  S.  R.  Sept.  9,  1653,  by  Humphrey  Moseley 
and  described  as  "by  Fletcher  and  Shakspere. ' '  It  was  not 
printed. 

It  was  on  Warburton's  list,  but  nothing  is  certainly  known 
of  it.1  The  ascription  to  Shakspere,  whether  correct  or  not, 
indicates  that  it  was  an  old  play,  dating  before  his  death.  In 
May,  1613,  Hemings  was  paid  for  a  performance  at  court  by 
the  King's  men  of  Cardenno,  and  in  June,  1613,  for  Cardenna. 
These  three,  Cardenio — Cardenno — Cardenna  are  probably  the 
same  play,  and  all  the  evidence  we  have  of  authorship  is 
Moseley 5s  assignment  to  Fletcher  and  Shakspere. 

We  have,  then,  three  plays — two  probably  acted  for  the  first 
time  in  1613,  and  the  third  certainly  as  early  as  1613 — for 
which  there  is  evidence  that  they  were  written  by  Shakspere 
and  Fletcher.  In  the  case  of  the  two  extant  plays  this  evidence 
has  seemed  reasonably  conclusive,  and  the  evidence  for  direct 
collaboration  hardly  less  so.  The  evidence  on  these  matters 
in  one  play  corroborates  the  evidence  in  the  case  of  the  other; 
and  the  evidence  in  the  case  of  Cardenio,  though  slight,  is  in 
harmony  with  our  conclusions  in  the  cases  of  Henry  VIII  and 
the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen.  On  the  whole  it  seems  decidedly 
probable  that  in  the  course  of  the  years  1611-1613  Shakspere 
and  Fletcher  were  writing  plays  in  collaboration  for  the  King's 
men. 

The  important  bearing  of  this  conclusion  on  our  main  investi- 
gation is  at  once  evident.  We  are  trying  to  demonstrate  that 
in  the  years  1608-1 1  Shakspere  was  influenced  by  the  romances 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher;  and  in  the  years  1611-1613  we 
find  that  Shakspere  wrote  two  and  possibly  three  plays  in  col- 
laboration with  Fletcher.  If  Shakspere  was  influenced  by 
any  one  in  the  last  years  of  his  dramatic  career,  it  was  most 
likely  by  Fletcher. 

A  fairly  strong  case,  too,  might  be  made  for  saying  that  in 
Henry  VIII  and  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  Fletcher's  influence 
rather  than  Shakspere 's  is  predominant.  It  may  at  least  be 
noted  that  while  Henry  VIII  is  a  chronicle  history  more  in 

1  For  a  refutation  of  Mr.  Fleay's  theory  that  the  play  was  identical 
with  Love's  Pilgrimage,  see  the  discussion  of  the  date  of  that  play. 
Attempts  have  also  been  made  to  identify  it  with  A  Very  Woman  and 
the  Double  Falsehood. 

55 


Shakspere's  than  Fletcher's  method,  Fletcher's  best  scenes 
both  in  stage  effectiveness  and  dramatic  power  are  as  notable 
as  Shakspere's.  In  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  in  spite  of  the 
trash  of  the  underplot  and  the  weakness  of  his  characterization, 
Fletcher  seems  to  have  contributed  most  largely  to  the  drama- 
tic development  of  the  main  action.  Much  has  been  said  of 
the  power  of  Shakspere's  partnership  in  bringing  out  Fletcher's 
best  work,  but  something  also  might  be  said  of  Fletcher's  in- 
fluence in  these  plays  on  Shakspere.1  In  a  case,  however, 
where  our  conclusions  rest  to  such  an  extent  on  conjecture, 
it  is  not  worth  while  to  use  these  conclusions  for  inductions  in 
regard  to  the  mutual  influence  of  the  two  collaborators. 

Admitting  that  there  is  much  in  the  discussion  of  these  two 
plays  which  remains  conjectural,  we  shall  still  insist  on  the  prob- 
ability of  our  main  conclusion  that  Shakspere  and  Fletcher  col- 
laborated. We  may  also  again  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  proba- 
bility of  this  collaboration  greatly  strengthens  the  prima  facie 
likelihood  that  Shakspere  was  directly  influenced  by  the  Beau- 
mont-Fletcher romances. 

1  Mr.  Sidney  L,ee  is  even  willing  to  find  a  direct  Fletcherian  influence 
on  Shakspere's  style.  Speaking  of  Wolsey's  farewell  to  Cromwell, 
he  says  :  "It  recalls  at  every  point  the  style  of  Fletcher,  and  nowhere 
that  of  Shakespeare's we  are  driven  to  the  alternative  con- 
clusion that  the  noble  valediction  was  by  Shakespeare,  who  in  it  gave 
proof  of  his  versatility  by  echoing  in  a  glorified  key  the  habitual  strain 
of  Fletcher,  his  colleague  and  virtual  successor."  Life,  pp.  262,  263. 


CHAPTER  V. 
CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  PLAYS  OF  BEAUMONT  AND  FLETCHER. 

In  arranging  a  chronology  of  the  plays  attributed  to  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher,  we  may  conveniently  divide  them  in  three 
groups:  I,  plays  produced  before  the  end  of  1611;  II,  plays 
1612-1618,  inclusive;  III,  plays  produced  after  1618.  The 
first  group  is  the  important  one  for  us.  Shakspere's  three 
romances  cannot  date  later  than  161 1,  so  no  plays  by  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  after  that  date  can  have  influenced  Shakspere,  but 
any  plays  before  that  may  have  done  so.  I  have  taken  Mr. 
Fleay's  examination l  as  the  basis  of  my  investigation,  and  in 
group  I  my  results  differ  radically  from  his.  In  groups  II  and 
III  the  chronology  is  by  no  means  so  uncertain  as  in  group  I, 
and  I  have  added  little  to  Mr.  Fleay's  results.  My  conclusions 
in  regard  to  plays  of  those  groups  are  given  without  discus- 
sion, except  in  a  few  cases  of  special  significance. 

In  group  I  we  shall  first  consider  eight  plays  which  date 
certainly  before  the  close  of  1611  and  then  eight  others  which 
are  conjecturally  placed  in  that  period.  In  examining  Four 
Plays  in  One,  Cupid' s  Revenge,  and  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  anticipate  some  of  the  matter  of  Chapter 
VII  on  the  general  character  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  ro- 
mances. 

When  a  reference  is  made  to  Mr.  Fleay's  conclusions  without 
page  number,  it  is  always  to  the  discussion  of  the  play  under 
consideration  in  his  Chronicle  of  the  Drama.  In  the  same  way 
a  reference  merely  to  Dyce  always  refers  to  his  note  on  the 
passage  under  discussion. 

/.     First  Group.     Plays  Before  the  End  of  1611. 

The  Woman  Hater.  Licensed  for  publication  by  Sir  George 
Buc,  20  May,  1607.  First  quarto,  1607,  "as  it  hath  been 
lately  acted  by  the  Children  of  Paules."  1648,  quarto  "  by  J. 
Fletcher."  1649,  by  F.  Beaumont  and  J.  Fletcher. 

Although  the  statement  on  the  title  page  cannot  be  taken  to 
prove  much  concerning  the  date  of  the  original  performance, 
it  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  play  was  produced  not  very 
long  before  May,  1607. 2  Eight  of  the  Paul's  boys  plays  were 

1Chr.  I,  p.  164,  seq. 

2  A  Mad  World  My  Masters,  by  Middleton ;  entered  4  Oct.,  1608; 

57 


licensed  in  I6O7,1  showing  that  the  company  broke  up  at  about 
that  time.  The  last  play  which  we  know  that  they  produced 
was  the  Abuses,  before  the  King,  30  July,  1606. 2 

Mr.  Fleay  places  the  date  of  the  first  representation  at  Easter, 
April  5,  1607,  on  account  of  tfee- two  allusions.  "A  favorite 
on  a  sudden"  (I,  3),  he  thinks  refers  to  Robert  Carr,  after- 
wards Karl  of  Somerset,  who  was  first  introduced  to  the  King's 
notice  at  a  tilt  which  occurred  March  24,  1607.  Carr  was  at 
this  time  a  mere  page,  brought  forward  by  Sir  James  Hays, 
and  was  accidentally  injured.  The  King  was  attracted  by  the 
boy's  beauty  and  visited  him  during  his  confinement  from  the 
injury.  Carr  did  not,  however,  become  notorious  as  a  great 
favorite  until  a  couple  of  years  later;  evidently  between  March 
24  and  April  5  there  could  hardly  have  been  occasion  for  so 
positive  an  allusion.  Moreover  the  play  contains  a  number  of 
allusions  to  favorites  and  new-made  lords,  and  James  had  several 
favorites  before  Carr.3 

Mr.  Fleay 's second  allusion,  "  another  inundation  "  (III,  i), 
he  takes  to  refer  to  the  rise  of  the  Severn  in  Somersetshire  and 
Gloucestershire  Jan.  20,  1607.*  The  expression  seems  more 
likely  to  refer  to  Noah's  flood.  In  expressing  surprise  at 
Gondarino's  sudden  change,  Oriana  says: 

"  Sure  we  shall  have  store  of  larks,  the  skies  will 
Not  hold  up  long;  I  should  have  look'd  as  soon 
For  frost  in  the  Dog-days,  or  another  inundation, 
As  hoped, this  strange  conversion  above  miracle." 

I  find  only  one  passage  which  helps  at  all  to  decide  the  date. 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  friends  of  Jonson,  as  we  have 
seen,  at  least  as  early  as  1607.  In  1605—6  the  Paul's  boys 
were  under  the  management  of  H.  Kirkham  who  had  been  with 
the  Queen's  children  of  the  revels  and  who  had  apparently 
left  at  the  time  of  their  trouble  over  Eastward  Ho,  1 604-5. 5 
Chapman's  Bussy  D'  Ambois  was  produced  by  the  Paul's  boys, 
perhaps  about  i6o5.6  A  friend  of  Jonson 's  and  a  writer  for 
the  Paul's  boys  must  have  been  acquainted  with  the  circum- 
stances of  the  imprisonment  of  Jonson,  Chapman,  and  Marston, 

4to  1608 — "it  hath  bin  lately  in  Action  by  the  Children  of  Paules." 
It  is  dated  by  Fleay  in  1606.  The  Roaring  Girl;  4to  1611,  "lately 
acted  on  Fortune  Stage,  is  dated  by  Fleay  1604-5. 

1  Northward  Ho,  Aug.  6 ;  Phoenix,  May  9 ;   Michaelmas  Term,  May 
15  ;    Woman  Hater,  May  5 ;  Bussy  D"1  Ambois,  June  5  ;    Trick  to  Catch 
the  Old  One,  Oct.  7;  all  in  1607.     Mad   World  My  Masters,  Oct.  4, 
1608.     Northward  Ho  was  published  in  1607. 

2  Nichols,  IV,  p.  1074. 

3  For  Carr's  early  career,  cf.  Nichols,  II,  p.  411-415,  II,  161.    Ill,  1076. 
Carr  was  not  knighted  until  Dec.  24,  1607. 

4  Stow.  p.  889. 
5Chr.  I,  59,  60. 
6Chr.  I,  60. 

•         58 


and  their  danger  of  losing  their  ears.1  The  following  passage 
in  the  prologue  seems  reminiscent  of  that;  at  any  rate  I  know 
nothing  else  it  would  be  so  likely  to  refer  to. 

' '  Or  if  there  be  any  lurking  amongst  you  in  corners  with 
' '  table-books,  who  have  some  hope  to  find  fit  matter  to  feed 
"  his—  —malice  on,  let  them  clasp  them  up  and  slink  away, 
"or  stay  and  be  converted.  For  he  who  made  this  play  means 
"  to  please  auditors  so,  as  he  may  be  an  auditor  himself  here- 
' '  after,  and  not  purchase  them  with  the  dear  loss  of  his  ears. ' ' 

All  through  the  play  there  is  ridicule  of  intelligencers  and 
trumped-up  charges  of  treason;  and  Fletcher's  verses  to  Jon- 
son's  Volpone  (acted  1605,  published  1607)  make  special  men- 
tion of  Jonson's  foes.  The  above  quotation  seems  tome  likely 
to  have  been  written  at  a  date  near  that  of  the  troubles  referred 
to;  and  the  passage  on  the  title  page  also  fits  a  date  as  early  as 
1605-6. 

The  play  contains  several  burlesque  imitations  of  Hamlet 
and  in  other  places  apparently  parodies  contemporary  writers. 
There  is  at  least  nothing  in  the  play  to  contradict  1605-6  as 
the  probable  date  of  composition  and  presentation. 

The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle.  First  quarto  1613.  Walter 
Burre,  the  publisher,  in  his  preface  addressed  to  Robert  Keysar, 
makes  a  number  of  statements  about  the  play.  '  It  was  writ- 
ten in  eight  days;  soon  after  (perhaps  because  it  was  so  unlike 
its  brethren)  exposed  to  the  wide  world,  who  utterly  rejected 
it.  It  was  succoured  from  perpetual  oblivion  by  Keysar  and  by 
him  sent  to  Burre  who  had  fostered  it  privately  these  two  years 
and  now  returns  it.  Perhaps  it  will  be  thought  to  be  of  the 
race  of  Don  Quixote ;  wre  may  both  confidently  swear  it  is  his 
elder  above  a  year. ' 3 

Don  Quixote  must  refer  to  the  translation,  entered  S.  R.  161 1 
and  printed  1612.  This  date  and  the  statement  that  Burre  had 
kept  the  play  by  him  two  years  seem  to  fix  the  date  at  1610-1 1. 
Mr.  Fleay  supports  1610  with  several  allusions  to  contemporary 
events  in  the  play;  an  examination  of  such  allusions,  however, 
leaves  me  rather  inclined  to  place  the  date  several  years  earlier. 
I  shall  state  first  the  internal  evidence  in  favor  of  1610  and 
then  that  which  points  to  an  earlier  date. 

Several  songs  in  the  play4  are  found  in  Ravenscroft's  collec- 
tions Deuteromelia  (entered  S.  R.  1609)  and  Pammelia  (entered 

1Chr.  I,  81.  II,  346.  Jonson  was  also  in  prison  again  in  connection 
with  Sejanus  and  was  accused  of  both  Popery  and  treason.  See  Chr. 
II,  p.  347- 

•II,  i,  p.  37:  III,  i,  p.  41  :  II,  i,  p.  34.     See  Dyce's  notes. 

8 Nevertheless,  the  indebtedness  of  K.  B.  P.  to  Don  Quixote  is  un- 
questionable. 

4 1,  4,  p.  150,  Deuteromelia.  II,  4,  Deuteromelia.  II,  7,  Pammelia 
(Trowl  the  Black  Bowl).  These  are  all  merest  snatches. 


59 


S.  R.  1609).     These  were,  however,  collections  of  songs  and 
snatches  already  familiar. 

"The  little  child,"  etc.,  (Ill,  2,)  seems  to  be  the  same  as 
"the  boy  of  six  years  old,"  etc.,  of  the  Alchemist  (1610), 
(V.  I,). 

'The  hermaphrodite"  (III,  2,)1  Mr.  Fleay  thinks  is  the 
monstrous  child  born  July  31,  1601,  at  Sandwich.  This  is  a 
very  doubtful  conjecture. 

The  above  references2  are  at  least  in  harmony  with  a  1610 
date.  The  following  seem  to  contradict  it. 

' '  This  seven  years  there  have  been  plays  at  this  house. ' ' 
(Induction.)  Mr.  Fleay  places  the  production  of  the  play  at 
Whitefriars,  because  he  thinks  the  play  was  acted  by  the  Revels 
children  who  were  at  Whitefriars  in  1610.  He  so  placed  it  in 
his  History  of  the  Stage  in  violence  to  this  passage,  for  he  then 
believed  Whitefriars  was  first  opened  January  1610.  Later 
Mr.  Greenstreet's  papers  showed  that  Whitefriars  was  occupied 
1607-1610;  so  in  the  Chronicle  of  the  Drama,  Mr.  Fleay  notices 
this  passage  and  from  it  concludes  that  the  play-house  in 
Whitefriars  must  also  have  been  occupied  1604-7.  There  is 
no  evidence  that  it  was  so  occupied.  Frequent  references  to 
the  children  show  that  the  play  was  produced  by  a  children's 
company.  If  by  the  Queen's  Revels,  the  seven  years  can 
hardly  refer  to  anything  except  their  occupancy  of  Blackfriars 
from  their  organization  of  1600  to  :6o7.3  If  by  the  Paul's 
boys,  the  passage  again  alludes  to  a  period  beginning  in  1599  4 
and  ending  1606-7.  Judging  from  what  we  know  of  the  stage 
history,  the  passage  cannot  refer  to  any  theater,  if  spoken  in 
1610;  if  spoken  in  1607,  it  can  refer  to  Blackfriars  or  probably 
to  the  house  occupied  by  the  Paul's  boys. 

There  is  an  allusion  (IV,  i,)5  to  the  Travails  of  Three  Eng- 

1<4The  Great  Dutchman"  (III,  2),  of  the  same  passage  has  not 
been  identified. 

2  Mr.  Fleay  also  says  the  statute  of  Jan.  7,  1609,  is  referred  to  in  I,  I. 
I  can  find  no  statute  of  that  date.     Parliament  did   not  meet  in  that 
year. 

3  A  glance  at  the  first  few  lines  of  the  induction  will  convince  any 
one  that  there  is  no  reference  to  an  occupancy  by  previous  companies, 
as  Mr.  Fleay  states.     The  lease  of  Blackfriars  was  taken  1600  (H.  of 
S.  p.  184,),  but  the  Revels  Company  was  acting  before. 

4  The  date  of  the  reinstatement  of  Paul's  boys  is  1599,  not  1600.     See 
The  Stage  Quarrel  between  Ben  Jonson  and  the  so-called  Poetasters. 

5 IV,  i.  Citizen.  "Why  so,  sir?  go  and  fetch  me  him  then  and  let 
the  Sophy  of  Persia  come  and  christen  him  a  child." 

Boy.  "  Believe  me,  sir,  that  will  not  do  so  well;  'tis  stale;  it  has 
been  had  before  at  the  Red  Bjjll. 

Mr.  Fleay  regards  this  allusion  to  the  Red  Bull,  proof  of  a  date  as 
late  as  1610  (H.  of  S.  195),  because  he  thinks  the  Red  Bull  was  not 
used  until  April  15,  1609.  His  proof  of  this  is  the  patent  granted 
Queen  Anne's  players  on  that  day.  But  the  patent  (Shak.  Soc.  Papers 
IV,  p.  44)  reads  "  to  shewe  and  exercise  publickly  as  well  within  their 

60 


lish  Brothers,  printed  1607  as  acted  at  the  Curtain.  Mr.  Boyle1 
notes  the  allusion,  and  since  the  Travails  was  based  on  the 
adventures  of  the  three  Shirleys  and  was  only  of  immediate 
interest,  he  thinks  a  reference  to  it  would  be  likely  to  be  con- 
temporary. The  play 2  was  hurriedly  written  and  at  once  pub- 
lished and  must  have  soon  been  superseded  in  favor,  and  for 
these  reasons  Mr.  Boyle  is  inclined  to  think  the  reference  in 
the  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  fixes  the  date  of  that  play 
about  1607. 

"Welcome,  sir  Knight,  into  my  father's  court, 
King  of  Moldavia,  unto  ine  Pomponia."     (IV,  2.) 

In  Nichols  (II,  157),  we  find  that  in  November,  1607,  "the 
Turk  and  the  Prince  of  Moldavia  are  now  going  away  (from 
London).  In  Jonson's  Epiccene  (acted  1609)  there  is  also  an 
allusion  to  the  Prince  of  Moldavia  (V,  i , ) ,  but  as  Jonson  spent 
a  year  or  two  on  a  play  this  mention  corresponds  with  that  in 
Nichols.  The  reference  in  the  Burning  Pestle,  therefore,  seems 
to  indicate  an  earlier  date  than  1610. 

Merrythought,  who  is  constantly  singing  ditties,  recalls 
Valerius  in  Hey  wood '  s  Rape  of  Lucrece,  printed  1608,  and  of 
course  acted  earlier.8  The  Burning  Pestle  satirizes  Heywrood's 
plays  and  his  company  (Queen's  men),  but  perhaps  Beaumont 
in  this  instance  borrowed  an  idea  which  had  proved  a  popular 
innovation,  or  perhaps  Hey  wood  borrowed  it  from  Beaumont. 
In  either  case  1607-8  becomes  the  more  likely  date  for  the 
Burning  Pestle.  This  is  pure  conjecture  on  my  part. 

There  remain  a  number  of  references  and  allusions  which 
give  no  definite  evidence  in  regard  to  the  date,  although  con- 
sidered cumulatively  they  favor  the  earlier  rather  than  the 
later. 

In  the  Induction  the  following  plays  are  mentioned:   the 

"  nowe  usual  houses  called  the  Redd  Bull,  Clerkenwell  and  the  Cur- 
"  tayne  in  Hallowell  as  alsoe  within  any  Towne  Hall,"  etc.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  conceive  how  Mr.  Fleay  concludes  from  this  that  on  that  date 
the  company  changed  from  the  Curtain  to  the  Bull.  One  would 
naturally  infer  that  the  company  had  used  both  theaters  for  some 
time.  There  are  several  references  to  the  Red  Bull  in  the  Knight  of 
the  Burning  Pestle;  and  according  to  Mr.  Fleay 's  theory  they  indicate 
a  date  later  than  1609.  From  my  interpretation  of  the  1609  patent, 
they  indicate  nothing  of  the  kind. 

iEnglische  Studien,  Vol.  IX. 

2 See  Chr.  II,  277. 

3  Fleay,  in  curious  contradiction  with  his  theory  that  the  Red  Bull 
was  not  opened  until  1609,  places  Lucrece  among  the  plays  at  the  Bull 
1609-13  rather  than  at  the  Curtain  1607-9.  (H.  of  S.  p.  189.)  In  the 
Chronicle  of  the  Drama  he  gives  the  date  of  the  first  quarto  correctly, 
1608.  Lucrece  in  modern  editions  is  usually  said  to  have  been  acted 
at  the  Red  Bull,  but  I  don't  know  whether  the  first  quarto  states  this 
or  not,  as  I  have  not  seen  a  copy.  Fleay  CH.  of  S.  p.  201,)  says  the 
Red  Bull  is  mentioned  for  the  first  time  in  the  1635  4to. 

6l 


Legend  of  Whittington,^  Life  and  Death  of  Sir  Thomas  Greshum 
with  the  building  of  the  Royal  Exchange?  the  story  of  Queen 
Eleanor*  Jane  Shore*  and  Bold  Beaucha  mps. 5  These  are  all 
old  plays,  and  favorites  with  the  citizen.  He  asks:  "why 
could  you  not  be  contented,  as  well  as  others,  with  these?" 
The  phrase  tf  as  well  as  others  "  seems  to  allude  to  the  Queen's 
men.  So  far  as  can  be  determined  these  were  all  plays  popular 
during  the  first  few  years  of  the  century. 

Musidorus  &&&  Jeronimo  are  also  alluded  to  in  the  Induction. 

Hey  wood's  Four  Apprentices  is  several  times  ridiculed.  The 
citizen  says  (IV,  i),  *'  Read  the  play  of  the  Four  Apprentices 
where  they  toss  their  pikes."  The  play  was  printed  in  1615, 
but  in  the  preface  Heywood  describes  it  as  written  fifteen  or 
sixteen  years  before.  The  passage  quoted  seems  to  point  to 
an  earlier  edition  than  that  of  1615,  but  there  is  no  other  indi- 
cation of  one.  As  the  citizen  is  made  to  speak  incorrectly, 
Dyce  thinks  the  passage  does  not  indicate  an  earlier  edition; 
Fleay  on  the  contrary  thinks  there  was  one. 6  Heywood  in  the 
preface  to  the  1615  edition,  alludes  to  the  resumption  of  artillery 
practice  by  the  citizens,  which  took  place  in  1610;  Mr.  Fleay, 
therefore,  concludes  that  the  preface  was  written  for  a  1610 
edition.  He  also  identifies  the  play  with  Godfrey  of  Bulloigne. 
All  this  is  extremely  doubtful,  and  to  use  it  to  establish  a  date 
1610— ii  for  the  Burning  Pestle  would  be  a  bad  case  of  reason- 
ing in  a  circle. 

There  is  considerable  burlesque  of  the  Mirrour  of  Knight- 
hood',  printed  1602  (final  part),  which  is  also  alluded  to  in  the 
Scornful  Lady.  (Ill ,  i . )  A  song7  is  given  which  occurs  with 
variations  and  an  additional  stanza  in  the  Captain.  Another 
song8  is  quoted  in  the  Woman1  s  Prize,  Monsieur  Thomas,  Blurt 
Master  Constable,  and  Lucrece.  There  is  an  allusion  to  the 
battle  at  Mile  End 9  as  in  Monsieur  Thomas. 

1S.  R.  1604. 

2  Hey  wood's  If  you  know  not  me,  you  know  nobody,  4to,  1605.     See 
Chr.  I,  292. 

3  The  famous  chronicle  of  King  Edward  I.  (  ?) 
4 Edivard  IV  (1599). 

5  See  Chr.  I,  287.     See  also  a  possible  allusion  in  A  Mad  World  My 
Masters  (4to,  1608),  Middleton's  Works.    Ed.  Bullen,  V,  2,  note. 

6  Chr.  I,  282. 

7 III,  i.     "Tell  me,  dearest,  what  is  love?"     The  Captain,  II,  2. 

8jIII,  5.  "Go  from  my  window,  love,  go!  "  W.  P.,  I,  3.  Mon.  T., 
Ill,  3.  B.  M.  C.,  IV,  2.  The  whole  song  is  one  of  those  added  to 
Lucrece. 

9 II,  2.  "I  can  assure  thee,  Michael,  Mile  End  is  a  goodly  matter; 
there  has  been  a  pitch  field,  my  child,  between  naughty  Spaniards  and 
Englishmen,"  etc.  Mon.  Thomas,  III,  3.  A  ballad  is  mentioned  of 
"the  Landing  of  the  Spaniards  at  Bow  and  bloody  battle  at  Mile 
End." 


62 


There  are  burlesques  of  passages  in  Henry  /F,1  Romeo  and 
Juliet?  and  the  Spanish  Tragedy? 

One  other  passage  has  a  slight  bearing  on  the  date.  In  I,  i , 
the  wife  asks:  "  Were  you  never  none  of  Master  Moncaster's 
scholars?"4  Dr.  Richard  Mulcaster  was  headmaster  of  St. 
Paul's  school  1596-1608. 

This  reference  to  Mulcaster  and  the  songs  which  occur  in 
other  plays  hardly  point  to  one  date  more  than  the  other.  The 
plays  referred  to  by  name  and  the  plays  burlesqued  are  all 
plays  that  were  familiar  early  in  the  century,  but  references 
might  have  been  made  to  them  in  1610  as  well  as  1607.  The 
similarity  of  the  burlesque  of  contemporary  drama  to  that  in 
the  Woman  Hater  must,  however,  be  noticed;  and  that  play 
was  surely  not  later  than  1607  and  probably  dates  1605-6. 

The  evidence  which  we  have  seen  points  definitely  to  1 607 
is  not  contradicted  by  anything  in  the  play  and  gives  us  a  good 
many  difficulties  to  explain  if  we  adopt  the  usual  1610— n  date. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  we  assume  a  1607  date,  we  shall  have  to 
assume  that  Robert  Keysar  turned  the  play  over  to  Burre  a 
considerable  time  after  its  first  production  and  that  Burre  knew 
nothing  personally  of  its  first  production.  I  see  no  escape 
from  the  dilemma,  but  I  am  inclined  to  think  the  1607  date 
the  less  objectionable.  The  play  at  all  events  cannot  be  later 
than  1611. 

The  Faithful  Shepherdess.  First  quarto,  undated,  but  before 
May  1610,  when  Sir  William  Skipwith,  one  of  the  three  per- 
sons to  whom  it  is  dedicated,  died. 

1  Induction.         "  By  heaven,  methinks  it  were  an  easy  leap, 

To  pluck  bright  honour,"  etc. 

This  is  an  almost  verbatim  burlesque  of  Hotspur's  speech,  i  Henry 
IV;  III,  i. 

V.  3.  To  a  resolv'd  mind  his  home  is  eve^where.  .  . 

*  *  *  "  Saint  George  and  on,  my  hearts!  " 

— seems  reminiscent  of  Henry's  speech  before  Harfleur,  Henry  V,  III, 
i ;  or  perhaps  of  Antonio's  Revenge,  II,  i. 

"  A  wise  man's  house  is  wheresoe'er  he  is  wise,"  etc. 
2 II,  i.     "  Good  night,  twenty  good  nights  and  twenty  more, 

And  twenty  more  good  nights — that  makes  three  score." 
— seems  to  be  a  parody  of  the  balcony  scene. 
3The  final  speech  of  Ralph's  ghost- 
When  "  I  was  mortal  and  my  costive  corpse 
Did  lap  up  figs  and  raisins  in  the  strand,  "- 
is  a  burlesque  of  Andrea's  ghost. 

4 Mr.  Fleay  comments  on  the  passage  quoted,  "z.  e.,  a  Paul's  boy 
before  1602."  Dyce  notes  that  Mulcaster  was  head  master  of  the 
Merchant  Taylor's  school,  1561-1586.  He  was  head  master  of  St. 
Paul's  school  1596-1608,  but  his  term  does  not  fix  the  date  of  this 
reference  which  might  have  been  made  after  he  had  given  up  teach- 
ing or  even  after  his  death,  1611.  For  an  account  of  the  life  of  this 
famous  schoolmaster,  see  Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  His 
name  appears  several  times  in  connection  with  the  stage  history  of  the 
period. 

63 


Mr.  Fleay  says  that  Bonian  and  Whalley,  the  publishers, 
are  conjoined  in  the  Stationer's  Register  from  Dec.  22,  1608, 
to  Sept.  i,  1609;  and  therefore  thinks  this  quarto  is  to  be 
placed  between  those  dates.  Bartholomew  Sutter,  however, 
seems  to  have  been  added  to  the  two  other  publishers  in  enter- 
ing the  Case  is  Altered,  July  20,  I6O9.1 

In  the  dedication  to  Sir  Walter  Aston,  Fletcher  speaks  of 
"the  infection,"  which  may  refer  specifically  to  the  prevalence 
of  the  plague,  1608-9,  or  it  maY  be 'a  general  reference  to  the 
continuance  of  the  plague  since  the  great  outbreak  in  1603. 
In  his  commendatory  verses,  Field  speaks  of  his  muse  "in 
swaddling  clouts;"  and  his  first  play,  says  Mr.  Fleay,2  was 
acted  in  1609,  but  in  another  place  Mr.  Fleay  gives  1610  as 
the  date  of  A  Woman  is  a  Weathercock?  Ben  Jonson  in 
Drummond's  Conversations  (1618)  is  reported  to  have  said, 
' '  Fletcher  and  Beaumont  ten  years  since  have  written  the 
Faithful  Shepherdess. ' ' 

Some  of  Mr.  Fleay 's  theories  which  he  thinks  bear  on  the 
date  of  this  play  may  be  left  to  one  side,4  but  the  foregoing 
evidence  supports  his  conclusion  that  it  was  first  acted  (when 
it  was  a  failure)  in  i6o8.5 

Philaster :  or,  Love  Lies  a  Bleeding.  First  quarto,  1620, 
"  as  acted  at  the  Globe  by  his  Majesties  Servants."  This  was 
apparently  a  pirated  edition. 

In  the  Scourge  of  Folly,  by  John  Davies  of  Hertford,  entered 
S.  R.  Oct.  8,  1610,  occurs  an  epigram6  referring  to  this  play. 

Mr.  Fleay  makes  several  different  statements  about  the 
date.  In  his  Life  of  Shakspere?  he  says:  "Philaster,  which 
contains  some  passages  suggested  by  this  play  {Cymbeline] , 
was  written  in  1611."  In  his  History  of  the  Stage,9"  he 


.  1,312. 

2  Chr.  I,  178. 

3Chr.  I,  185. 

4 The  fact  that  Field,  Chapman,  and  Jonson  wrote  commendatory 
verses  for  this  play,  seems  to  Fleay  proof  that  it  was  written  for  the 
Queen's  Revels  children,  because  he  thinks  these  men  were  all  con- 
nected with  the  Revels  boys  1608-9.  He  also  thinks  the  play  must  be 
dated  before  July  28,  1608,  when  he  thinks  the  theaters  were  closed  by 
the  plague.  We  have  already  discussed  the  value  of  these  two  kinds 
of  evidence.  The  play  was  doubtless  acted  by  a  company  of  children. 

6  There  is  no  certain  early  limit. 

6  "To  the  well-deserving,  Mr.  John  Fletcher." 

"  Love  lies  bleeding,  if  it  should  not  prove 
His  utmost  act  to  show  why  it  doth  love, 
Thou  being  the  subject  (now)  it  waits  upon 
Reign'st  in  Acte,  Judgment,  and  Invention. 
For  this  I  love  thee,  and  can  do  no  less 
For  thine  as  faire,  as  faithful  Shepherdess." 

7L.  of  S.,  p.  246. 
8H.  of  S.,  p.  203. 

64 


places  Philaster  among  the  plays  first  produced  at  the  Globe 
and  the  Blackfriars  by  the  King's  men  1610-13,  and  again  in 
a  foot-note1,  after  Dec.  24,  1609.  In  his  Chronicle  of  the  Drama? 
he  says  it  was  produced  by  the  King's  men  at  the  Globe,  be- 
fore 1 6 10,  Oct.  8.  Here  at  last  he  is  on  safe  ground,  but  even 
here  he  assumes  that  it  was  written  after  Shakspere  left  the 
King's  men,3  which  we  have  already  seen,  even  from  his  own 
statements,  to  be  impossible.4 

The  statement  in  the  1620  quarto  that  the  play  was  acted  at 
the  Globe  is  probably  of  no  value  in  indicating  the  place  of 
the  first  performance,5  but  there  is  no  reason  why  Philaster 
may  not  have  been  produced  there  before  Burbadge  took  up 
the  Blackfriars  lease  in  1608.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  early  limit 
that  can  be  set  for  the  date;  the  final  limit  is  of  course,  fixed 
by  Davies'  Epigram.  The  Scourge  of  Folly  furnishes  no  further 
clue  in  regard  to  the  date  of  this  epigram.  The  only  other 
play  referred  to  is  Marston's  Malcontent  (printed  1604).  The 
epigram  preceding  the  one  on  Fletcher  is  addressed  to  Ostler, 
"sole  king  of  actors,"  who  joined  the  King's  men  when  Bur- 
badge  took  up  the  lease  in  1608. 

One  passage  in  the  play  seems  certainly  to  contain  a  local 
allusion,  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  identify  it. 

"  So  please  you,  sir,  he's  gone  to  see  the  city 
And  the  new  platform;  with  some  gentlemen 
Attending  on  him."  6 

One  passage  seems  to  be  an  echo  of  Hamlet,'1  and  Mr.  Ma- 
caulay  and  Dr,  Leonhardt 8  have  also  found  other  similarities. 

The  date,  1608,  adopted  by  Dyce,  L,eonhardt,  Macaulay,  and 
students  in  general,  is  no  more  than  a  conjecture;  but  on  the 
whole  it  seems  a  probable  one. 

The  Maid' s  Tragedy.  First  quarto,  1619.  "  As  it  hath  been 
divers  times  acted  at  the  Blackfriars  by  the  King  Majesty's 
Servants."  No  authors  are  given. 

It  was  evidently  written  before  Oct.  31,  1611,  on  which  day 
a  play  was  licensed  by  Sir  George  Buc,  which  he  endorsed  as 
' '  this  second  maiden's  tragedy. ' '  This  is  written  on  the  manu- 

1H.  of  S.,  p.  250. 

2Chr.  I,  p.  189. 

3Chr.  I,  p.  170.   .  Note  the  order  in  which  he  arranges  the  plays. 

4  See  page  21. 

6  Because  Philaster  was  a  very  popular  play  and  was  doubtless  on 
the  stage  in  1620. 

6  Philaster,  Act.  V,  sc.  3. 

7 1,  i.    Dion  :     "  Mark  but  the  King,  how  pale  he  looks  with  fear! 

Oh,  this  same  whoreson  conscience,  how  it  jades  us!  " 

8Anglia,  Vol.  VIII.  The  plot  includes  Philaster's  revenge  on  the 
King,  his  father's  deposer,  and  hence  there  are  resemblances  to  the 
earlier  tragedies  dealing  with  "  revenge  for  a  father,"  and  of  course,  to 
Hamlet. 

6  65 


script  of  that  play  now  in  existence,  but  the  title  of  the  play  is 
missing.  Mr.  F\eay  thinks  this  endorsement  shows  that  the 
Maid' s  Tragedy  was  licensed  immediately  before  the  play  of 
Oct.  31.  This  is  pure  conjecture;  the  superscription  may,  on 
the  contrary,  be  taken  to  indicate  that  the  Maid' s  Tragedy  was 
well  known.  The  "  second  maiden's  tragedy  "  has  no  appar- 
ent relation  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  play,  and  one  can  only 
guess  at  Sir  George  Buc's  reasons  for  using  the  title. 

Mr.  Fleay  thinks  that  the  masque  was  inserted  at  the  time 
of  the  court  performance1  (1612-13),  and  even  conjectures  that 
it  was  written  for  a  marriage  Jan.  29,  1612,  and  later  inserted 
in  the  play.  The  masque  is  mentioned  in  the  opening  lines  of 
the  pla)r  and  several  times  afterwards  in  the  first  act,  which 
would  indicate  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  play  from  the  first.  In 
fact  it  is  an  integrant  part  of  the  action.  It  may  have  been 
revised,  although  the  irregularities  instanced  by  Mr.  Fleay 
hardly  indicate  that.2 

It  must  be  noted  that  the  statement  in  the  1619  quarto  that 
the  play  was  acted  at  the  Blackfriars  cannot  be  accepted  as  set- 
tling the  place  of  the  first  performance,  so  even  the  purchase  of 
the  Blackfriars'  lease  in  1 608  cannot  be  certainly  taken  as  fixing 
an  early  limit.  Mr.  Fleay  finds  the  date  1611  in  conformity 
with  his  theories  of  the  stage  history;  the  usual  conjecture  has 
been  1609  or  1610.  So  far  as  I  can  find,  there  is  no  early  limit 
for  the  date,  1609  is  an  unobjectionable  conjecture,  and  the 
latest  limit  is  certainly  Oct.  31,  1611. 

The  Coxcomb.  First  printed  in  folio  1647.  Acted  at  court 
by  Rossi ter's  Company  before  Lady  Elizabeth  and  Prince  Pala- 
tine Oct.,  1612;*  also  acted  before  the  King  March,  i6i3.4 

There  is  a  list  of  actors  given  in  the  second  folio  (1679).  In 
the  History  of  the  Stage*  Mr.  Fleay  assigns  this  list  to  the  pre- 
sentation before  the  King  1613.  In  the  Chronicle  of  the  Drama* 
he  decides  that  the  list  "  must  date  before  August  29,  1611, 
for  Gary  and  Barkstead,  who  appear  on  it,  and  who  had  always, 

JSee  ante,  p.  29. 

2  Mr.  Fleay  is  at  so  much  trouble  to  prove  that  the  masque  was  a 
later  insertion  because  he  thinks  the  lines — 

"  You  shall  have  many  floods  fuller  and  higher 
Than  you  have  wished  for ;  and  no  ebb  shall  dare 
To  let  the  day  see  where  your  dwellings  are." 

can  hardly  refer  to  the  floods  of  1607,  and  must,  therefore,  refer  to 
those  of  1612,  Oct. -Dec.,  i.  e.,  the  allusion  must  have  been  made  in  the 
revision  for  the  court  performance.  The  allusion  is  very  doubtful  at 
best,  but  there  is  no  reason  why  the  play  may  not  date  early  enough 
to  make  the  allusion  to  the  floods  of  1607. 

3H.  of  S.,  p.  175. 

4Oldys'  ms.  notes  to  Langbaine. 

5H.  of  S.,  p.  187. 

•Chr.,  I,  185. 

66 


till  then,  been  Revels  boys,  at  that  date  joined  the  Lady  Eliza- 
beth's men  under  Foster."  He  also  decides  that  the  date  must 
be  later  than  Mar.  30,  1610,  because  Joseph  Taylor,  who  is  on 
the  list,  was  on  that  date  with  the  Duke  of  York's  men.  The 
first  statement  is  correct,  but  the  last  is  a  surprising  inference. 
The  Duke  of  York's  Company  was  just  established  on  March 
30,  I6IO;1  so  that  Fleay  conjectures  that  Taylor  at  once  left 
this  newly  formed  men's  company  to  play  with  Rossiter's  chil- 
dren. The  natural  inference  is  that  Taylor2  had  been  with  the 
Revels  children  and  left  them  in  March,  1610,  to  join  the 
newly  formed  men's  company,  just  as  Gary  and  Barkstead  did 
in  1611.  Taylor  was  evidently  a  prominent  actor  by  1610-12, 
for  he  is  second  on  the  list  of  Lady  Elizabeth's  Company,  Aug. , 
1611  (which  he  joined  with  Gary  and  Barkstead),  and  is  acting 
as  manager  in  i6i2-i38in  the  list  of  court  payments.  If  we 
take  the  natural  inference  in  regard  to  him  the  Coxcomb  must 
date  not  after  but  before  March  30,  i6io.4 

Now,  Jonson's  Epiccene  was  performed  by  the  Revels  chil- 
dren in  1609,  and  we  have  a  list  of  the  actors.  Rossiter's  Com- 
pany, it  will  be  remembered,  was  a  continuation  of  the  Revels 
(first  Queen's).  The  question  arises  did  the  Coxcomb  precede 
or  follow  Epiccene  f  A  comparison  of  the  two  lists'  leaves  the 
question  in  doubt:  five  names  are  the  same  on  both  lists.  I 
give  them,  with  numbers  denoting  their  order: 

Cox.  Epic. 

Nathan  Field,  i  i 

Giles  Carey,  3  3 

Rich.  Allin,  5  6 

Hugh  At ta well,  6  5 

Will  Barkstead,  8  2 

Three  names  are  different  on  each  list.  I  give  them,  with 
the  dates  and  companies  with  which  they  are  known  to  have 
been  playing  after  these  lists.  No  one  of  the  six  is  found  on 
any  earlier  list. 

Coxcomb.  Joseph  Taylor  (2)  Mar.  30,  1610,  Duke  of  York's. 
Aug.  29,  1611,  Forster's  Lady  Elizabeth's. 

Emanuel  Read  (4)  1613,  the  reorganized  Lady  Elizabeth's 
Company,  to  which  Field  also  went.  1617,  Queen  Anne's. 

Robt.  Benfield  (7)  1613,  Lady  Elizabeth's.    1619,  King'smen. 

Epiccene.     Will  Pen  (4)  20  May,  1616,  Prince's  men. 

John  Smitth  (7)  20  May,  1616,  Prince's  men. 

John  Blaney  (8)  1617,  Queen  Anne's. 

1H.  of  S.,  p.  188.  Patent  is  quoted,  which  was  granted  Mar.  30,  1610, 
to  the  Duke  of  York's  men. 

2  Mr.  Oliphant  also  comes  to  this  conclusion.  See  Eng.  Studien, 
XV, 'p.  322. 

3H.  of  S.,  p.  175. 

4  So  Mr.  Oliphant  decides.    Eng.  Studien,  XV,  p.  322. 

67 


There  is  no  evidence  which  of  the  lists  is  older,  both  may 
date  at  about  the  same  time.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  Cox- 
comb list  may  not  apply  to  an  earlier  presentation  than  that  of 
Epiccene;  possibly,  then,  to  a  first  presentation  at  Blackfriars, 
1605-8. 

Other  evidences  of  date  are  slight.  Ostend  is  alluded  to,1 
and  also  the  pamphlet  of  Nicholas  Breton,  printed  i6oo-i6o2.2 

The  source  of  the  plot  which  gives  the  play  its  name  is  Cer- 
vantes' Curioso  Impertinente ;  first  printed  with  Don  Quixote, 
1605;  translated  into  French  and  published  1608,  as  Le  Curieux 
Impertinente?  This  fixes  the  earliest  limit  for  The  Coxcomb 
at  1605.  It  is  certainly  earlier  than  Aug.  29,  1611  ;  almost  as 
certainly  earlier  than  March  30,  1610;  and,  possibly  enough, 
earlier  than  i6o9-4 

Cupid1  s  Revenge.  First  quarto,  1615.  "  By  John  Fletcher, ' ' 
"As  it  hath  been  divers  times  acted  by  the  Children  of  her 
Majestie's  Revels."  The  printer  in  an  address  to  the  reader 
declares  that  he  is  not  acquainted  with  the  author  and  ends: 
"  I  once  again  dedicate  this  book  to  the  judicious,  some  whereof 
"  I  have  heard  commend  it  to  be  excellent — who  because  they 
' '  saw  it  acted  and  knew  whereof  they  spoke  are  the  better  to 
"be  believed, — and  for  my  part,  I  censure  thus — that  I  have 
' '  never  read  a  better. ' ' 

It  was  acted  before  Prince  Henry  and  Princess  Elizabeth, 
the  Sunday  following  New  Year's  1612,  by  the  Children*  of 
Whitefriars,  and  again  at  court,  according  to  Oldys,  in  1613. 

All  critics  agree  in  assigning  shares  to  both  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher.  There  are  evidences  of  alteration,  and  Mr.  Fleay 
thinks  it  was  worked  over  for  the  court  presentation;  Mr. 
Boyle  also  finds  indications  of  a  third  hand;  and  Mr.  Oliphant 
of  a  third  and  fourth. 

Mr.  Fleay  fixes  the  date  at  1610,  because  Rossiter's  com- 
pany of  Revels  was  then  at  Whitefriars  and  because  he  thinks 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  stopped  writing  for  the  Revels  children 
and  went  to  the  King's  men  in  the  fall  of  1610.  This  last 
statement,  we  have  seen,  to  be  contrary  to  evidence.5  The 

1II,  2.     "  When  they  take  a  thief,  I'll  take  Ostend  again.'' 

Ostend  was  taken  Sept.  8,  1604.  Such  an  allusion  as  this  might  date 
a  number  of  years  after  the  event.  Osteud  is  also  alluded  to  in  Woman's 
Prize,  I,  3,  and  Love's  Cure,  I,  i  (both  probably  acted  before  1608). 

2V,  4.  "Mother,  do  you  read  Madcap  still?"  Cf.  Dyce.  Cf.,  also, 
the  Scornful  Lady,  II,  i. 

sCf.  Koeppel,  p.  83.  Don  Quixote  seems  to  have  been  known  to 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  in  Spanish.  This  plot  from  the  Curioso  Im- 
pertinente is  also  used  in  Field's  Amends  for  Ladies  (1611?)  and  the 
Second  Maiden's  Tragedy  (1611). 

4 The  country  scenes  (especially  III,  3)  suggest  the  conjecture  that 
the  Coxcomb  may  be  one  of  the  comedies  written  at  the  time  of  Beau- 
mont's stay  in  the  country,  referred  to  in  his  Poetical  Epistle  to  Ben 
fonson  (about  1606). 

5  See  ante,  Chap.  II. 

68 


play  may  have  been  written  for  the  earlier  Revels  and  handed 
over  by  them  to  Rossi  ter's  company,  or  it  may  have  been  writ- 
ten for  Rossiter's  company  in  1610-11,  while  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  were  also  writing  for  the  King's  men.  The  play,  as 
in  all  cases  of  which  we  have  evidence,  was  doubtless  acted  in 
public  before  the  court  performance;  therefore  its  date  cannot 
be  later  than  the  last  of  1611. 

The  plot  requires  some  consideration  because  it  throws  open 
an  opportunity  for  conjectures  in  respect  to  the  date  and  be- 
cause it  illustrates  the  dramatic  methods  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher.  It  is  taken  from  Sidney's  Arcadia?  Two  stories 
are  combined  more  closely  than  in  the  Arcadia,  and  the  prosy 
narrative  of  the  novel  is  developed  into  a  series  of  lively  situa- 
tions with  a  new  melodramatic  denouement,  quite  after  the 
style  of  that  in  Thierry  and  Theodoret.  Some  of  the  other 
alterations  are  worth  noting.  ( i )  The  repugnant  dwarf  Zoilus 
is  substituted  for  the  nurse's  son,  with  whom  the  Princess  is 
enamoured.  This  "Cupid's  revenge"  recalls  Oberon's  re- 
venge in  Midsummer  Night's  Dream  as  Koeppel  suggests,  but 
the  change  is  obviously  due  to  a  desire  for  a  '  strong '  stage 
situation.  (2)  The  machinery  of  Cupid,  who  descends  and 
ascends,  is  added;  this  with  the  dance  and  songs  supplies  the 
first  two  acts  with  a  masque-like  element.  (3)  The  queen, 
Bacha,  is  a  very  bad  woman  of  the  Megra-Brunhalt  type;  her 
portrait  is,  however,  distinctly  sketched  in  Arcadia.  (4)  Ti- 
mantus,  the  coward  and  poltroon  of  the  Bessus-Protaldy  type 
is  developed  from  a  very  slight  allusion  in  the  novel  to  the 
"queen's  wicked  counsellors."  (5)  Ismenus,  the  faithful 
friend  of  the  Melantius-Mardonius  type,  is  added.  (6)  Urania, 
the  girl  of  the  Aspatia-Bellario  type,  who  dons  boy's  clothes 
and  follows  her  lover,  is  also  added.  These  last  two  charac- 
ters are  not  so  much  as  suggested  in  the  Arcadia.  (7)  Leu- 
cippus,  the  hero,  is  of  the  Philaster-Amintor  sort,  or  as  Mr. 
Oliphant  styles  the  type,  "the  Beaumontesque  lily-livered 
order  of  men."  This  character  is  hardly  suggested  in  the 
novel.2 

Now  the  types  represented  by  these  last  five  characters  ap- 
pear in  Philaster,  the  Maid 's  Tragedy,  Thierry  and  Theodoret, 
and  A  King  and  No  King.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  discuss 
them  later,  but  their  appearance  here  shows  that  when  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher  wrote  Cupid's  Revenge  they  had  the  main 
features  of  their  characteristic  romances  clearly  in  mind.  They 
followed  the  plot  given  them  rather  closely  at  times  but  always 

1  Works,  ed.  1725.     Vol.  I,  264  ff,  276  fif.     Cf.  Dyce,  Vol.  II,  331,  and 
Koeppel,  p.  41. 

2  It  may  be  noted  that  the  mob  which  rescues  I^eucippus  is  developed 
from    a    brief    reference    in    the    Arcadia.      It    recalls    the    mob    in 
Philaster. 


with  an  eye  to  startling  and  vigorous  situations  and  with  the 
x,  addition  of  a  denouement  similar  to  one  used  in  another  play. 
To  this  plot  they  added  a  little  spectacular  business  and  five 
t}^pes  of  characters  familiar  in  their  other  plays.  There  is  no 
indefiniteness  in  the  character-drawing,  little  sign  of  experi- 
mentation. There  is  little  masterly  poetry  in  the  play,  but  the^i 
' '  lily-livered  prince, ' '  the  evil,  passionate  woman,  the  blunt  sol- 
dier-friend, the  poltroon,  and  the  childishly  loving  girl  are  all 
delineated  with  a  completeness  that  indicates  practice^ 

The  play  is  such  a  one  as  might  have  been  hastily  written 
by  men  who  merely  drew  from  their  dramatic  stock  in  trade — 
it  looks  like  an  attempt  to  repeat  the  success  of  Philaster. 
So  it  seems  to  me,  but  one  must  not  rest  much  on  conjectures  of 
this  sort.  Whatever  its  date  may  be  in  relation  to  the  other 
romances,  Cupid1  s  Revenge  affords  an  interesting  opportunity 
to  study  the  methods  of  construction  and  the  stock  characters 
of  the  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  romances. 

A  King  and  No  King,  First  quarto,  entered  S.  R.  Aug.  7, 
1 6 1 8 .  It  was  licensed  by  Buck  in  1 6 1 1 ,  and  performed  at  court 
Dec.  1611  and  again  1612-13.  This  is  the  only  playacted 
before  1612,  the  year  of  whose  production  is  fixed. 

We  have  now  examined  the  dates  of  eight  plays  certainly 
acted  by  the  end  of  1611,  we  shall  next  consider  the  dates  of 
eight  others  which  may  be  conjecturally  assigned  to  the  same 
period. 

The  Woman"1  s  Prize,  or  the  Tamer  Tamed.  First  printed  in 
folio  1647.  Revived  in  1633;  described  in  Herbert's  licensing 
book  as  "an  old  play  by  Fletcher; "  suppressed  by  Herbert 
and  the  Scornful  Lady  acted  instead.  Acted  before  the  King 
and  Queen  Nov.  28,  1633  by  the  King's  men  and  "  very  well 
liked."  Two  days  before,  the  Taming  of  the  Shrew  was  acted 
and  only  "liked.'" 

The  play  is  a  sequel  to  the  Taming  of  the  Shrew  and  intro- 
duces Petruchio  with  a  second  wife  who  tames  him.  Mr. 
Fleay  is  in  doubt  whether  to  date  it  1612  or  1615,  preferring 
the  latter  and  conjecturing  that  the  play  was  originally  pro- 
duced by  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  men.  Mr.  Oliphant  gives  rea- 
sons for  thinking  it  was  an  early  play  of  1606-7,  or  possibly 
1604,  and  revised  about  1 6 13-14.  * 

Mr.  Oliphant  points  out  that  Dekker's  Medicine  for  a  Curst 
Wifez  was  acted  by  the  Admiral's  men  July  1602,  Hey  wood's 
A  Woman  Killed  with  Kindness,'2'  Feb. -March,  1603,  and  the 
Taming  of  the  Shrew  by  the  King's  men  in  1 603, 8  and  that 
Patient  Grissil  was  published  in  1603.  Fletcher's  play  on  a 

iEnglische  Studien,  XV,  pp.  388,  389. 

2  See  Henslow's  Diary. 

3  Fleay,  Shaks.,  p.  224. 

70 


similar  theme  he  thinks  may  have  been  suggested  by  these; 
or,  as  he  thinks  more  likely,  it  may  be  connected  with  the 
publication  of  A  Woman  Killed  with  Kindness,  in  1607,  and  the 
re-entry  of  the  old  Taming  of  the  Shrew  in  the  same  year. 

The  play  contains  the  following  allusions  (I,  3)  to  the  siege 
of  Ostend  (July  5,  1601,  to  Sept.  8,  1604). 

"  Colonel  Biauca.     She  commands  the  works 

Spinola's  but  a  ditcher  to  her." 

"  The  chamber's  nothing  but  a  mere  Ostend." 

The  fortification  metaphor,  moreover,  runs  throughout  the 
scene.  The  most  natural  and,  I  think,  a  safe  conclusion1  is 
that  the  play  was  written  during  or  shortly  after  the  siege  of 
Ostend. 

There  is  another  allusion  (II,  2)  which  points  to  an  early 
date. 

"  his  infliction 

That  killed  the  Prince  of  Orange,  will  be  sport 
To  what  we  purpose." 

The  Prince  of  Orange  was  murdered  in  1584;  a  very  vivid 
account  of  the  punishments  inflicted  upon  the  murderer  is  given 
in  A  True  Discourse  Historical  of  the  Succeeding  Governors  of  the 
Netherlands,  etc.,  4to,  i6o2.2  This  account  would  seem  to 
have  been  in  the  writer's  mind  when  he  wrote  the  above  pas- 
sage. 

There  is  an  allusion  to  the  Spanish  Tragedy  (II,  6)  and  a 
burlesque  on  Hamlet  (V,  3).3  A  ballad  is  given  (I,  3)  which 
is  also  quoted  in  the  Burning  Pestle  (III,  5)  and  Monsieur 
Thomas  (III,  3). 

Valid  reasons  for  dating  this  and  other  plays  as  early  as 
1604-5  might  be  adduced  from  the  complete  blank  in  Fletcher's 
career,  1604-7,  an<^  the  large  number  of  important  plays  usually 
assigned,  1607-11,  but  consideration  of  such  evidence  may  well 
be  postponed  until  we  attempt  to  form  a  chronology  of  all  the 
plays  together.  In  this  case  there  is  sufficient  internal  evi- 
dence to  determine  the  date.  There  is  nothing  in  the  play  to 

1  It  is  possible  that  the  reference  may  have  been  written  eight  or  ten 
years  after  the  event,  but  it  sounds  like  a  contemporaneous  allusion. 
The  siege  of  Ostend  was,  to  be  sure,  a  very  famous  event,  but  it  is 
alluded  to  in  only  two  other  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  collected 
plays,  Coxcomb,.!!,  2,  Dyce,  III,  p.  154,  and  Love's  Cure,  I,  i,  Dyce, 
X,  p.  112.  Both  of  these,  we  shall  find  reason  to  think,  date  before 
1609,  and  both  of  the  allusions  distinctly  refer  to  the  siege  as  a  past 
event.  A  true  history  of  the  Memorable  Siege  of  Ostend,  etc.,  4  to, was 
published  in  1604. 

2 See  Works,  ed.  Dyce,  VII,  p.  113. 

3  Mr.  Oliphant  also  finds  a  parody  on  Lear  (II,  5)  and  an  allusion  to 
a  Woman  Killed  with  Kindness  (III,  4).  The  latter  speaks  of  a  hus- 
band "killed  with  kindness,"  and  has  no  reference  to  Heywood's 
play. 

71 


contradict  the  early  date;1  and  the  references  to  Ostend  and  the 
murderer  of  the  Prince  of  Orange,  and,  less  surely,  the  plays 
on  similar  themes  of  about  1603,  seem  to  fix  the  date  at  1604. 

Love's  Cure  or  the  Martial  Maid.  First  printed  in  folio  1647; 
without  an  actors'  list,  therefore  probably  not  acted  by  the 
King's  men. 

The  date  was  formerly  supposed  to  be  fixed  by  the  allusion 
to  the  cold  Muscovite2  at  1622  or  a  little  later.  Mr.  Fleay, 
however,  has  shown  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  first  produc- 
tion was  much  earlier  and  that  the  reference  to  the  cold  Mus- 
covite belongs  to  a  late  revision  by  Massinger  of  the  original 
play  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  At  the  start  it  is  necessary 
to  show  some  evidence  of  such  a  revision.  Fleay,  Boyle,  and 
Oliphant  are  all  agreed  that  a  large  part  of  the  play  as  it  now 
stands  is  to  be  accredited  to  Massinger.  No  one  finds  any  very 
conclusive  evidence  of  Fletcher's  work;  the  probability,  there- 
fore, of  an  original  unrevised  play  rests  on  the  question  of 
Beaumont's  authorship. 

The  prologue  at  a  late  revival,  subsequent  to  1625,  mentions 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  as  the  authors,  which  rather  implies 
that  the  play  was  written  in  Beaumont's  life- time.  Moreover, 
Beaumont's  hand  seems  to  me  distinctly  traceable.  Two  scenes 
in  particular  seem  to  me  Beaumont's  in  entirety.  On  looking 
at  their  divisions,  I  find  that  Fleay  and  Oliphant  also  assign 
these  scenes  among  others  to  Beaumont.  Boyle  assigns  them 
to  an  unknown  author,  but  an  examination  of  his  tables3  shows 
that  these  scenes  must  be  assigned  by  verse  tests  to  Beaumont. 
The  table  shows  the  tests  for  the  two  scenes  in  Love' s  Cure  and 
compares  the  results  with  the  percentages  of  other  of  Beau- 
mont's plays. 

This  is  as  near  as  you  can  come  to  proving  authorship  by 
verse-tests.4  We  are  justified,  then,  in  concluding  that  as 

JMr.  Oliphant  finds  an  allusion  to  Jonson's  Silent  Woman  (III, 
i),  and  also  says  he  finds  comparisons  with  half  a  dozen  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher's  plays.  He  only  gives  two  of  these,  and  they  do  not 
tempt  one  to  search  farther.  They  are  : 

Woman's  Prize,  II,  i.     "  My  nose  blown  to  my  hand." 

Woman  Hater,  III,  i.     "  My  nose  blow'd  to  my  hand." 

Woman's  Prize,  II,  2.     "  Put  up  your  pipes." 

Woman  Hater,  III,  i.     "  Put  up  thy  pipes." 

Obviously,  Mr.  Oliphant  has  a  very  keen  scent  for  these  similarities, 
and  he  thinks  a  good  many  of  them  belong  to  the  conjectured  revision 
of  1613-14.  The  two  titles  and  the  fact  that  the  scene  is  London, while 
the  characters  have  Italian  names,  are  the  only  definite  evidences  of 
this  revision.  No  one  has  detected  any  author  except  Fletcher. 

2 II,  2.     See  Dyce. 

3Englische  Studien.  V,  p.  74,  seq.  The  figures  in  the  table  are 
Boyle's. 

4 The  '  'em-them  '  test  is  worth  noting  in  this  connection,  although 
it  is  not  helpful  in  deciding  the  authorship.  There  are  17  thems  and 
21  'ems  in  the  play :  according  to  Boyle's  division  there  are  13  thems 

72 


«§ 

RUN- 

LIGHT 

WEAK 

a 

m 

M 

VERSK 

TvINFS 

t>  5 

OVER 

END- 

END- 

A 

LINES 

INGS 

INGS 

M 

3 

Love's  Cure,  III,  3, 

123 

14 

41 

3 

o 

4 

"      V,  3, 

217 

40 

60 

7 

I 

8 

two  scenes, 

340 

54 

101 

10 

I 

12 

"      Percentage, 
Beaumont's  share  Triumph  of 

15-9 

29.7 

3~ 

0 

3-5 

I/ove  (entire), 

628 

15-6 

25- 

3- 

— 

9- 

Beaumont's  share  Philaster, 

1,730 

15.2 

26.2- 

2.4 

— 

1.2 

"               "A  King  and 

No  King, 

1,650 

11.9 

27.8 

1.8 

•7 

I  . 

Beaumont  had  a  share  in  the  play  it  must  have  been  written 
before  1616  and  revised  by  Massinger  after  1622.  This  hy- 
pothesis is  more  plausible  than  the  old  one  fixing  the  date  of 
the  first  production  in  1622,  for  then  we  should  have  a  play 
accredited  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  in  which  neither  had  a 
share.  A  part  of  the  original  play  may  have  been  written  by 
Fletcher,  but  his  work  is  hardly  discernible  through  Massinger's 
revision;  Beaumont's  work  is  discernible  in  my  opinion  in  much 
that  has  been  revised  as  well  as  in  a  number  of  scenes  where  it 
seems  preserved  in  its  entirety. 

We  come  now  to  internal  evidence  which  fixes  the  date  of  the 
original  play.  Mr.  Fleay  has  pointed  out  a  number  of  refer- 
ences. Alvarez1  (I,  3)  has  had  twenty  years  of  exile;  Lucio, 
born  just  after  the  departure  of  Alvarez  into  exile  is  twenty 
years  old;2  Alvarez  had  been  exiled  sixteen  years8  before  he 
brought  Clara  to  Ostend  (June,  1661 — Aug.,  1604).  The  date 
of  the  action  of  the  play,  then,  is  four  years  later,  1605—1608; 
which,  Mr.  Fleay  adds,  ' '  is  no  doubt,  as  usual  in  plays  where 
such  chronological  calculations  are  introduced,  the  date  of 
writing. ' '  Certainly  it  is  natural  for  the  date  of  action  in  such 
cases  to  coincide  with  the  date  of  writing,  but  the  time  of  action 

and  i  'em  in  Massinger's  half  of  the  play  and  4  thems  and  20  'ems  in 
the  half  assigned  to  the  unknown  author.  In  Oliphant's  division 
there  are  13  thems  and  i  'em  in  Massinger's  part,  3  'ems  in  Beaumont 
and  Massinger's,  and  4  thems  and  17  'ems  in  Beaumont's  part.  Kven 
a  single  'em  in  Massinger  is  suspicious  ;  the  'ems  furnish  no  conclusive 
evidence  of  Fletcher's  hand ;  and  the  proportion  of  'ems  and  thems 
neither  counts  for  nor  against  Beaumont. 
I.  i.  i  them.  III.  5. 

I.  3.     i  them  (prose).  IV.  2. 
II.  i.     i  them  5  'ems  (all  prose).  IV.  3. 
II.  2.     i  them  3  'ems.  V.  i. 

III.  2.  3  'ems.  V.  3. 

III.  3.  3  'ems. 

III.4.     i  them  i 'em.  Total   17  thems  21  'ems. 

II,  3,  p.  121.     "  My  twenty  years  of  sorrow  but  a  dream." 

I,  3,  p.  123.     "  Have  you  been  twenty  years  a  stranger  to  it?  " 
2I,  2,  p.  116. 
8 1,  i,  p.  112. 


i  them  (prose). 

i  'em. 
7  thems. 
4  thems. 

5  'ems  (2  in  prose). 


For  twenty  years,  which  is  ever  since  you  were  born. 


73 


is  stated  directly  in  the  first  lines  of  the  play  without  any  chrono- 
logical calculations.     The  lines  are  spoken  of  Alvarez. 

"As  if  by  his  command  alone,  and  fortune, 
Holland,  with  those  low  Provinces  that  hold  out 
Against  the  Arch-duke,  were  again  compell'd 
With  their  obedience  to  give  up  their  lives 
To  be  at  his  devotion." 

These  lines  and  the  other  allusions  in  the  first  scene  to  the 
Arch-duke  and  Ostend  can  only  refer  to  the  war  between  Spain 
and  the  Netherlands  in  which  the  Cardinal  Arch-duke  Albert 
was  governor  of  the  Netherlands  and  which  ended  in  a  truce 
April  9,  1609.  The  Arch-duke  was  given  special  powers  to 
bring  about  a  truce  Jan.  10,  i6oS,1  and  from  that  time  on  nego- 
tiations were  in  progress;  perhaps  the  references  in  Love's  Cure, 
then,  may  be  taken  to  indicate  a  period  earlier  than  1608.  At 
all  events,  they  fix  the  time  of  the  action,  and  I  think  un- 
questionably the  time  of  the  writing  between  1605  and  1609. 

Mr.  Fleay  has  also  noticed  "the  use  of  the  name  Lazarilloas 
in  the  Woman  Hater"  Not  only  is  the  name  the  same,  but 
this  Lazarillo,  like  the  fellow  in  the  Woman  Hate^r,  is  a  glutton, 
interested  in  nothing  but  eating.  Thus  when  he  comes  to 
hanging  he  says:  ' '  I  have  no  stomach  for  it,  but  I '  11  endeavor, ' ' 
and  again  when  he  is  sent  to  the  galleys,  "Well,  though  I 
herrings  want,  I  shall  have  rows."  The  similarity  between 
the  two  lyazarillos  points  to  Beaumont's  authorship  of  Love's 
Cure  and  a  date  not  very  distant  from  that  of  the  Woman 
Hater. 

Mr.  Fleay  also  says  that  the  "  miraculous  maid  "  (II,  i,)  is 
the  maid  of  Confolens,  1604.  j-kavea't  ideatifiedr-tfais.^./  #"1/1  uJ* 

The  other  references  which  he  cites  as  evidences  of  an  early    ^    FT\ 
date  are  very  doubtful.2 

There  is  one  other  passage  which  bears  on  the  date.  "  Why 
I  but  taught  her  a  Spanish  trick  in  charity  and  holp  the  King 

1  There  was  a  seven  months  truce  beginning  April  24,  1607.     For  an 
account  of  the  Siege  of  Ostend,  etc.,  see  Motley's  Uuited  Netherlands, 
Vol.  IV. 

2  III,  i,  p.  142.    "  You,  politic  Diego  with  your  face  of  wisdom  !    Don 
Blirt!" 

Fleay  thinks  that  this  refers  to  Middleton's  play,  Blurt  Master  Con- 
stable (4to,  1602).  Don  Diego,  a  famous  and  unsavory  character,  is 
mentioned  in  that  play  and  in  the  Famous  History  of  Sir  Thomas 
Wyatt  (1602),  but  he  is  frequently  alluded  to  in  the  later  dramatists, 
e.  g.,  Maid  of  the  Mill,  (licensed  1623),  so  the  allusion  does  not  indi- 
cate an  early  date. 

V,  3,  end.  Alquazier.  "  You  have  married  a  whore,  may  she  prove 
honest." 

Perrato.     "  It  is  better,  my  I/ord,  than  to  marry 

An  honest  woman  that  may  prove  whore." 

Considerable  ingenuity  is  required  to  find  here,  as  does  Fleay,  an 
allusion  to  Dekker's  play. 

74 


to  a  subject  that  may  live  to  take  Grave  Maurice  prisoner  "  (I, 
2).  This  passage  would  most  likely  have  been  written  when 
Maurice  was  at  war  with  Spain.  He  was  at  war  up  to  1609, 
and  then,  after  a  truce  of  twelve  years,  again  from  1621  to  his 
death  in  1625.  So  far  the  passage  might  have  been  written 
either  at  the  time  of  the  original  or  the  revised  version  of  the 
play;  but  Graf  Maurice  of  Nassau  became  Prince  of  Orange  in 
1618,  and  if  the  passage  was  written  in  1622  the  latter  title 
would  naturally  have  been  used.  The  passage,  then,  still  far- 
ther proves  that  the  date  of  writing  of  the  original  version  cor- 
responds with  the  date  of  the  action,  and  that  this  date  is  before 
1609  and  probably  1605-8. 

Thierry  and  Theodoret.  First  quarto,  1621;  "As  it  was 
divers  times  acted  at  the  Stack  Friers  by  the  King's  Majesties 
Servants:"  no  authors  given.  Quarto,  1648,  "  by  John  Fletcher." 
Quarto,  1649,  "byF.  Beaumont  and  J.  Fletcher." 

The  quarto  in  1621  was  printed  by  T.  Walkley,  who,  in  1620, 
printed  an  apparently  pirated  edition  of  Philaster,  and  in  1619  a 
quarto  of  A  King  and  No  King}  In  a  preface  to  the  latter, 
Walkley  addresses  Sir  Henry  Neville,  from  whom  he  says  he 
had  received  the  manuscript,  and  he  speaks  of  both  authors  as 
living.  Beaumont  had  been  dead  three  years,  and  Walkley 
evidently  had  no  intercourse  with  Fletcher.  The  testimony  of 
the  quartos  is  as  usual  untrustworthy,  but  it  is  worth  noting  that 
as  far  as  quartos  go  Thierry  and  Theodoret  has  practically  as  good 
evidence  for  an  early  date  as  Philaster  and  A  King  and  No 
King  and  the  same  testimony  to  Beaumont's  authorship  as  the 
Woman  Hater? 

Mr.  Fleay  places  the  date  about  1617,  because  he  thinks  the 
play  a  satire  on  the  French  court  at  that  period.  Mr.  Fleay 
and  Mr.  Boyle  think  the  play  written  by  Fletcher,  Massinger, 
and  a  third  writer  concerning  whose  identity  they  are  in  doubt.3 . 
ff-JLVf  Dyce  and  Macaulay  find  evidences  of  Beaumont's  authorship 
which  would  require  an  early  date;  and  Mr.  Oliphant  thinks 
the  play  was  first  written  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  about 
1607-8  and  revised  1617  by  Fletcher  and  Massinger.  I  shall 
try  to  show  that  there  is  good  reason,  apart  from  Mr.  Oliphant's 
analysis,  to  conclude  that  the  play  was  originally  written  at  an 
early  date  and  revised  at  a  later  date  by  Massinger.  The  proof 
of  this  proposition  will  depend  mainly  on  an  examination  of  the 
sources  of  the  plot  and  a  comparison  of  the  play  with  the  other 
romances  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher;  but  at  the  start  we  must 
look  at  the  authorship  tests  to  see  what  warrant  they  give  for 

aln  these  two  quartos  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  named. 
2  Woman  Hater,  4to,  1607,  no  author :  4to,  1648,  "byj.  Fletcher;" 
4to,  1649,  by  F.  Beaumont  and  J.  Fletcher. 

8  Mr.  A.  H.  Bullen  adopts  this  analysis.     Diet.  Nat.  Biog. 


75 


supposing  that  Massinger  was  a  late  reviser  and  Beaumont  one 
of  the  original  authors. 

Besides  the  scenes  which  are  variously  assigned,  four  scenes 
(I,  i;  II,  2;  IV,  i;  V,  2,)  are  assigned  by  every  one  to  Fletcher; 
three  others  are  assigned  to  Massinger  by  Fleay,  Oliphant,  and 
Boyle  in  his  Englische  Studien  papers1  (I,  2;  II,  i;  IV,  2). 
Two  of  the  three  remaining  verse  scenes  are  selected  by 
Macaulay  as  most  plainly  Beaumont's,  are  assigned  in  large 
part  by  Oliphant  to  Beaumont,  were  assigned  to  Beaumont  by 
Fleay  before  he  had  fixed  on  1617  for  the  date,  and  are  now 
assigned  by  Fleay  and  Bo}7^  rather  doubtfully  to  Field  and 
Daborne,  respectively.  From  an  examination  of  Mr.  Boyle's 
own  verse  tests,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  no  great  difficulty 
in  accrediting  these  scenes  to  Beaumont;  indeed  a  comparison 
with  the  verse  tests  of  the  two  plays  most  probably  wholly  his 
entirely  removes  the  difficulty. 


ii 

RUN- 

WEAK 

LIGHT 

| 

LINES 

-•    M 

t>  o 

OVER 

END- 

END- 

*5 
5* 

0  fc 

LINES 

INGS 

INGS 

• 

P  W 

a 

Th.  and  Th.  Ill,  i, 

296 

67 

69 

5 

2 

16 

Th.  and  Th.  Ill,  2, 

70 

15 

!7 

2 

I 

2 

Percentage, 

22.4 

23.6 

1.9 

0-9 

4.9 

Knight  of  the  B.  P., 

23.2 

18. 

0.7 

23-4 

Woman  Hater, 

17- 

22.7 

2. 

o-5 

6.8 

Philaster  (Beaumont's  share), 

15.2 

26.2 

2-4 

1.2 

So  much  for  verse  tests  and  Beaumont's  authorship;  Mas- 
singer's  share  in  the  play  is  not  denied,  and  if  Beaumont  was 
one  of  the  original  authors  Massinger  must  be  counted  a  reviser. 
Mr.  Oliphant,  in  fact,  finds  portions  of  scenes  in  which  he  thinks 
Massinger' s  revisal  of  Beaumont's  work  is  apparent,  and  there 
is  one  scene  (II,  3)  in  which  Mr.  Boyle  finds  Massinger  where 
the  others  find  only  Fletcher.  Moreover,  in  a  scene  assigned 
by  all  three  critics  to  Massinger  (II,  i),  there  are  two  'ems 
and  eleven  thems.2  Even  these  two  'ems  rather  indicate  that 


i  'em.  2  them.   F. 

0  'ems.  2  thems.  M. 

1  'em.  8  thems.  B.  ?  prose 
o  'ems.  2  thems.  F. 


.  Studien,  Vol.  V. 
2  The  'ems  and  thems  occur  as  follows  : 


I. 
I. 
II. 
II. 
II. 
III. 
III. 


6  'ems.  i  them.     F. 

o  'ems.  i  them.    M. 

2  'ems.  ii  thems.  M. 

5  'ems.  i  them.     F. 

0  'ems.  2  thems.   ? 

1  'em.  i  them.     B? 
o  'ems.  o  them.    B.? 


IV.  i. 
IV.  2. 

V.  i. 

V.  2. 


Total    16  'ems.  31  thems. 


In  the  four  scenes  generally  assigned  to  Fletcher  there  are  12  'ems 
6  thems  in  735  lines.  In  the  three  scenes  assigned  generally  to  Mas- 
singer,  2  'ems  13  thems  (728  lines).  In  the  two  verse  scenes  assigned 
to  Beaumont  i  'em  i  them  (366  lines).  The  'em-them  test  thus  indi- 
cates that  the  division  between  Massinger  and  Fletcher  is  roughly 


76 


some  one  besides  Massinger  had  a  hand  in  the  scene.  Still 
further,  in  another  scene  assigned  to  Massinger  (I,  2),  there 
seems  to  me  a  noticeable  difference  in  the  style  before  and  after 
the  entrance  of  De  Vitry.  An  application  of  the  verse  tests 
confirms  my  opinion.1  Throughout  the  play,  both  in  Fletcher's 
and  Beaumont's  parts,  Massinger' s  work  will  similarly,  I  sus- 
pect, be  found  to  be  that  of  a  reviser  and  completer.2 

The  sources  of  the  plot  were  stated  by  Langbaine  to  be  the 
chronicles  of  the  time  of  Clotaire  II:  Fredegarius,  Aimonius, 
Crispin,  De  Serres,  and  Mezeray.  This  statement  has  been 
frequently  quoted  by  later  writers,  but  an  examination  of  the 
sources  seems  never  to  have  to  have  been  attempted.  Mezeray 3 
did  not  write  until  towards  the  end  of  the  century,  long  after 
Thierry  and  Theodoret ;  the  chronicles  of  Fredegarius  and 
Aimonius4  do  contain  the  sources  of  the  plot;  but  the  imme- 
diate source  seems  to  have  been  a  work  based  on  the  chronicles. 
Lez  Antiquitez  et  Histoires  Gauloises  et  Francoises  f  by  M. 
Claude  Fauchet  was  published  as  appears  by  the  dedicatory 
letter,  in  1599.  This  work  may  very  readily  have  come  to  the 
hands  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  seems  to  have  supplied  all 
the  historical  matter  they  used.  It  follows  the  chronicles  so 
closely  that  one  cannot  say  certainly  whether  they  used  it  or 
the  chronicles,  but  its  existence  and  vogue  (several  editions)  at 

accurate;  but  the  'ems  in  Massinger's  part,  and  the  large  proportion 
of  thems  in  Fletcher's,  hint  that  the  separation  of  the  two  authors  is 
not  exact. 


1 

VERSE 
LINES 

>OUBLE 

N  DINGS 

RUN- 
OVER 
LINES 

WEAK 
END- 
INGS. 

LIGHT 
END- 
INGS 

HYMES 
l 

H  H 

A 

I,  2,  a,  to  De  Vitry's  entry, 

78 

18 

41 

6 

4 

2 

Percentage, 

23.1 

52-6 

7-7 

5- 

I,  2,  b,  after  De  Vitry's  entry, 

54 

23- 

18. 

i. 

i. 

2 

Percentage, 

5i-9 

33-3 

— 

— 

The  second  part  of  the  scene  answers  pretty  well  to  the  Fletcher 
canon  though  the  number  of  run-over  lines  is  a  trifle  large.  The  first 
part  suits  the  Massinger  canon  better  than  the  second,  but  the  double 
endings  are  rather  few  and  the  run-over  lines  rather  many.  Add  the 
two  parts  together  and  you  get  percentages  which  correspond  fairly 
well  with  Massinger's  work ;  which  shows  how  easily  verse  tests  may 
conceal  rather  than  disclose  double  authorship.  The  verse  tests  I  have 
given  don't  prove  double  authorship,  but  in  substantiation  of  an  opinion 
formed  merely  in  reading  the  lines  they  are  rather  striking. 

2 This  will  have  to  rest  on  opinion ;  verse  tests,  at  least,  offer  no  sure 
help. 

3  Born  1610. 

4 1  have  not  examined  De  Serres  or  Crispin. 

8 1  have  used  an  edition  of  Les  Oeuvres  de  Fev  M.  Claude  Fauchet, 
Paris,  1610;  described  as  the  "  derniere  edition" — "re'vise'es  et  corri- 
ge'es  " — "  supplies  et  augmentees. 


77 


this  time  make  the  probability  great  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
drew  from  it  alone.1 

The  principal  events  which  form  the  historical  basis  of  the 
play  are  as  follows  : 

i  .  2  The  kingdom  is  divided  between  Thierry  and  Theodoret, 
and  Brunhalt  (Brunhaud),  having  outraged  the  Austrasians 
by  her  cruelty,  is  expelled  from  the  court  of  Theodoret  and 
goes  to  that  of  Thierry.  Historicaliy,  she  is  the  grandmother 
of  the  two  kings. 

2.  3     The  characters  of  Brunhalt  and  Thierry  and  their  re- 
spective amours  are  distinctly  outlined. 

3.  4     Protaldy  (Protand  or  Protadius),  Brunhalt's  minion,  is 
elevated  to  the  office  of  master  of  the  palace.     He  is  later  killed 
by  the  nobles  while  seated  in  the  tent  of  King  Thierry,  "  jou- 
ant  aux  tables  avec  Pierre,  premier  medecin  du  Roy." 

4.  5     This  civil  war  between  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  thus 
prevented  by  the  death  of  the  leader,   Protaldy,  is  urged  on 
anew  by  Brunhalt.     She  incites  Thierry  by  declaring  that  Theo- 
doret is  the  son  of  a  gardener,  not  of  the  king. 

5.  6    Theodoret  is  defeated  in  battle,  captured  by  Thierry, 
and  put  to  death  by  Brunhalt. 

6.  7     Thierry  marries  Ermemberge,  daughter  of  the  King  of 
Spain,  but  he  is  prevented  by  Bruuhalt  8  and  her  sister  from 
ever  living  with  his  bride  as  husband,  and  Ermemberge  is  sent 
back  to  Spain. 

y.9  Thierry  wishes  to  marry  the  daughter  of  Theodoret 
(who  in  the  play  is  named  Memberge,  evidently  suggested  by 
Ermemberge),  but  Bruuhalt  opposes  and  now  declares  that 
Theodoret  really  was  his  brother.  She  finally  poisons  Thierry. 
This  account  10  may  be  quoted  in  full  to  show  how  the  historical 
narrative  is  made  dramatic. 

"  Thiebert,  Roy  d'Austrasie  auvit,  commei'ay  dit  laisse  une 
tres  belle  fille,  de  1'  excellence  beaute  de  laquelle  Thierry  vaincu, 
desira  1'auoir  pour  femme,  centre  la  volonte  de  son  ayeule;  la- 
quelle n'ayant  fait  difficulte  d'espouser  Merouee  neueu  de 

1  Apart  from  the  dependence  of  the  plot  of   Thierry  and  Theodoret 
on   the   historical   narrative,   there   is   evidence  that   Beaumont   and 
Fletcher  used  either  the  chronicles  or  Fauchet.     The  name,  Phara- 
mond,  in  Philaster  seems  to  be  taken  from  Fauchet,  it  is  the  name  of 
the  first  king  of  France.     In  Henry  VIII,  I,  3,  1  10,  (Fletcher's  part) 
there  is  an  allusion  to  Pepin  and  Clotaire. 

2  Book  V,  ch.  2,  p.  151. 
3Bk.  V,  ch.  2. 

4Bk.  V,  ch.  2,  p.  153. 

5B.  V,  ch.  3,  p.  153. 

6B.  V,  ch.  4,  p.  156. 

7B.  V,  ch.  3,  p.  154. 

8  In  the  translation  of  Mezaray  "  by  the  witchcraft  of  Brunhalt,"  etc. 

9B.  V,  ch.  5,  p.  157. 


73 


Sigisbert  son  mary ,  maintenant  se  monstroit  plus  conscientieuse 
a  1'endroit  de  Thierry,  &  luiz  mettoit  deuant  les  yeux,  que 
ceste  Damoiselle  estant  fille  de  son  frere,  il  ne  la  pouuoit  raison- 
nablement  espouser.  Sur  quoy  Thierry  presque  forcene  d '  amour, 
luy  respondit;  mechante  ennemie  de  Dieu,  ne  m'as  tu  pas  dit 
qu'il  n'estoit  point  mon  frere?  Pourquoy  done,  si  ceste  cy  est 
ma  niepce,  m'as  tu  fait  commettre  un  si  detestable  parricide?  Je 
t'assure  que  tu  en  mourras;  &  mettant  la  main  a  1'espee,  sur 
1'heure  s'en  alloit  tuer  son  ayeule,  qui  ne  la  luy  eust  oster. 
Toutesfois  elle  fut  portee  en  sa  maison,  ayant  eschappe  la  mort 
toute  certaine :  mais  retenant  en  son  courage  vn  appetit  de 
vengeance  qu'elle  ne  point  longuement  garder.  Car  a  Tissue 
d'un  bain,  elle  fit  presenter  a  ce  Roy  vn  beuuage  empoisonne 
duquel  il  mourut  aussi  meschautement  qu'il  s'estoit  desordon- 
nement  porte  la  reste  de  sa  vie. ' ' 

Throughout  the  play  as  well  as  in  the  dramatization  of  this 
chapter,  the  historical  narrative  is  much  changed,  the  chrono- 
logical order  is  avoided,  and  many  new  situations  are  added. 
We  shall  return  later  to  a  consideration  of  some  of  these 
changes  and  additions;  for  the  present  we  are  to  note  that  the 
indebtedness  of  the  play  to  the  historical  account  is  certainly 
very  considerable. *  Any  political  references  to  the  contemporary 
French  court  made  in  Massinger's  revision  of  the  play  would 
not  interfere  with  our  hypothesis  of  an  early  date;  but  there 
is  no  evidence  of  any  satire  on  the  court  of  Mary  de  Medici. 

Mr.  Fleay's  evidence  is  :  "  The  astrology  of  I^acure  and  the 
name  De  Vitry  distinctly  point  to  the  condemnation  of  Concini 
in  1617  for  treason  and  sorcery.  Vitri  arrested  the  Marechal 
d'Ancre,  and  on  his  resistance  killed  him." 

Lecure,  Protaldy's  associate  in  villainy,  is  described  as  physi- 
cian to  Brunhalt  and  is  obviously  suggested  by  Protaldy's 
companion  in  the  chronicles,  the  "premier  medecin  du  Roy." 
His  astrology  and  the  drugs  by  which  he  renders  Thierry  in- 
capable seem,  also,  to  have  been  derived  from  the  actual  practices 
of  Brunhalt  in  frustrating  the  marriage  of  Thierry  and  Her- 
meric.  For  a  contemporary  prototype  of  Lecure  there  is  no 
need  of  going  to  France  and  the  Concini  case;  a  much  better 
example  is  to  be  found  in  the  notorious  Dr.  Simon  Forman,  of 
London,  who  was  at  the  height  of  his  quackery  for  the  ten  years 
preceding  his  death,  in  1611.  Forman' s  practices,2  exactly  re- 

^Brunhowlte,  an  old  play  of  1597,  mentioned  in  Henslow's  diary, 
may  have  been  at  the  basis  of  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  but  the  latter's 
obligation  to  the  historical  narrative  is  sometimes  so  minute,  and  the 
development  of  the  material  so  characteristic  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
that  I  don't  imagine  they  used  the  old  play  at  all. 

^State  Trials,  I,  p.  339,  seq.  Kennett,  Vol.  II,  p.  667.  Forman  was 
consulted  by  Lady  Essex  (Frances  Howard)  and  Mrs.  Turner  "how 
they  might  stop  the  current  of  the  Earl's  affection  toward  his  wife." 
"  He  made  many  little  pictures  of  brass  and  wax  "  ....  "and 

79 


sembling  those  of  Lecure  upon  Thierry,  are  related  in  the  state 
trials  and  seventeenth  century  accounts  of  the  career  and  trial 
of  Frances  Howard.  Forman  was  well  known  and  he  was  only 
one  of  many;  such  astrologers  as  Lecure  and  such  practices  as 
his  were  common  enough.  Their  exploitation  in  this  play  can 
have  no  specific  reference  to  Concini,  but  is  clearly  only  the 
natural  development  of  the  direct  suggestions  of  the  historical 
narrative. 

As  to  the  name  De  Vitry,  it  is  too  common  to  point  very 
closely  at  the  Vitri  who  arrested  Marechal  d' Ancre.  We  learn 
from  the  letters  of  the  French  minister,  Beaumont,1  that  there 
was  a  M.  de  Vitry  in  Kngland  1603—5,  "a  perfect  master  of  the 
science  of  the  chase,"  sent  by  Henry  to  insinuate  himself  into 
James'  favor.  Moreover  this  name  may  have  been  derived 
directly  from  the  chronicles  on  Fanchet.  In  Gregory  of  Tours 2- 
of  whose  chronicle  Fredegarius  is  a  continuation — in  an  account 
of  an  expedition  by  Brunhalt  and  her  husband  against  Chil- 
peric,  there  is  mention  of  a  village  "  de  nom  de  Vitry."  In 
Fauchet 8  the  village  is  a  Vitry. 

So  much  for  Mr.  Fleay's  conjectures  in  the  light  of  the  play's 
sources;  returning  now  to  the  dramatic  development  of  the 
historical  material,  I  find  additional  evidences  of  Beaumont's 
workmanship.  Among  the  most  notable  situations  added  to 
the  historical  plot  are  (i)  those  involving  Protaldy  and  (2) 
those  involving  Ordella.  The  Protaldy  scenes  have  a  very  close 
resemblance  to  the  Bessus  scenes  in  A  King  and  No  King.  In 
one  scene4  Protaldy,  the  braggart-coward,  is  kicked  and  de- 
prived of  his  sword  by  Martell  just  as  Bessus,  a  similar  brag- 
gart and  coward,  is  kicked  and  deprived  of  his  sword  by  Ba- 
curius.6  In  another  scene6  Protaldy  is  again  disgraced  and 
beaten  by  de  Vitry  as  Bessus  is  beaten  by  L,ygones.7  Of  the 
Ordella  scenes, the  final  one,8 a  highly  melodramatic  denouement, 
quite  after  the  style  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  romances, 
closely  resembles  the  denoumeut  of  Ciipid1  s  Revenge.  The  hero 
dies  by  the  hand  of  the  wicked  queen-mother;  the  heroine  dies 
apparently  simply  for  the  sake  of  dying  with  her  beloved;  the 

then  with  philters,  powders,  and  such  drugs,  he  works  upon  their 
persons."  His  powders,  according  to  accounts,  proved  successful  with 
the  Barl  and  also  with  Mrs.  Turner's  lover.  Forman  was  in  great 
demand  among  the  court  people  of  the  day,  as  his  papers  discovered 
at  his  death  made  evident. 

translation  of  von  Raumer,  II,  201. 

2Guizot's  edition,  Book  IV,  p.  231. 

8B.  Ill,  ch.  XVI. 

4 II,  2  (Fletcher). 

6  A  King  and  N.  K.,  Ill,  2. 

6 III,  i  (Beaumont?) 

7A.  K.  N.  K.,  V,  3. 

8  V,  2  (Fletcher).     For  other  Ordella  Scenes,  see  III,  i ;  IV,  i. 


80 


wicked  queen-mother  commits  suicide;  and  the  faithful  friend 
is  left  to  curse  her  and  to  lament  his  friend. 

The  development  of  the  characterization  even  more  closely 
resembles  that  of  the  other  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  romances. 
Ordella  is  merely  named  in  the  history;  in  the  play  she  becomes 
another  of  the  devoted,  sacrificing,  idyllic  maidens  so  familiar 
in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  Martell,  the  blunt  and  faithful 
friend,  and  De  Vitry,  a  sort  of  understudy,  are  not  so  much  as 
hinted  at  in  the  history  but  are  of  a  type  familiar  in  the  other 
romances  and  perhaps  most  highly  developed  in  Mardonius  of 
A  King  and  No  King.  Protaldy  in  the  chronicles  is  the  par- 
amour of  Brunhalt,  but  a  man  ' '  subtil  et  habile  en  toutes 
actions;"  1  in  the  play  he  is  developed  into  the  utter  poltroon 
and  supplies  the  comic  element.  He  reminds  one  very  closely 
of  Bessus  in  A  King  and  No  King.  Brunhalt  and  Thierry  are 
at  least  outlined  in  the  history,  but  in  the  play  they  are  developed 
much  as  their  prototypes  are  developed  in  Cupid' s  Revenge 
from  a  similar  outline  in  the  Arcadia.  Thierry  resembles  most 
closely  Arbaces  of  A  King  and  No  King* 

These  five  types  of  character  are  the  same  five  types  that  we 
find  in  Philaster,  the  Maid's  Tragedy  *  A  King  and  No  King, 
and  Cupid' s  Revenge.  The  first  three  of  these  romances  were 
probably  written  mainly  by  Beaumont,  and  he  had  a  share  of  the 
fourth.  These  five  types  of  character,  on  whose  development 
the  plays  depend  for  their  characteristic  qualities,  are  certainly 
among  the  most  salient  features  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
work.  They  appear  in  every  romance  in  which  Beaumont  had 
a  share  and  they  appear  together  in  no  play  written  by  Fletcher 
alone  and  in  no  play  of  Massinger's.  They  are  characteristic 
of  the  four  plays  mentioned  above  and  of  Thierry  and  Theo- 
doret  and  of  no  other.4  The  evidence,  then,  is  strong  that 
Beaumont  had  a  share  with  Fletcher  in  creating  Thierry  and 
Theodoret. 

Not  only  do  these  resemblances  to  the  other  romances  point 
to  Beaumont's  authorship,  they  point  in  a  still  more  definite 
way  to  an  early  date.  In  the  method  of  dramatizing  a  short 
narrative,  in  the  construction  of  the  denouement,  and  in  the 
addition  and  development  of  certain  fixed  types  of  character;  we 
have  seen  that  the  play  resembles  Cupid's  Revenge.  Still  more 
specifically  in  the  character  types  and  distinctly  in  the  braggart- 
soldier  scenes,  we  have  noted  its  resemblance  to  A  King  and 

ipauchet:    B.  V.,  ch.  3,  p.  153. 

2  Thierry  and  Arbaces  form  a  species  by  themselves,  differing  con- 
siderably from  the  other  heroes.  The  Bauder  and  the  rest  are  the 
ordinary  comic  people  of  the  stage  and  readily  suggested  by  the  ac- 
counts of  the  amours  of  Brunhalt  and  of  Thierry. 

3 Except  the  poltroon. 

4  Four  Plays  ought  perhaps  to  be  added  to  make  the  case  even 
stronger,  but  all  the  five  types  do  not  appear  there  together. 

7  81 


No  King.  Furthermore  I  venture  to  conjecture  that  in  the 
narrative  passage  quoted  above  from  Fauchet  and  the  situation 
developed  from  it  in  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  we  have  the  source 
of  A  King  and  No  King. 

No  other  source  is  known.  The  story  of  Tigranes  and  As- 
patia  is  merely  a  variation  of  the  Philaster-Bellario  and  Amin- 
tor-Aspatia  situations,  and  the  story  of  Bessus  may  well  be  a 
development  of  the  Protaldy  situations;  but  the  main  plot,  the 
story  of  Arbace's  love  for  his  supposed  sister,  has  no  parallel  in 
the  plays  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  unless  it  be  the  story  of 
Thierry's  love  for  his  niece  Memberge.  In  the  history  and  in 
Thierry  and  Theodoret  the  situation  is  the  same:  the  queen  has 
two  sons;  she  tells  number  one  that  number  two  is  not  her  son 
and  has  him  killed ;  then  when  number  one  is  .about  to  marry 
number  two's  daughter,  the  queen-mother  declares  that  number 
two  really  was  her  son  and  that  number  one  will  commit  incest 
if  he  marries  the  girl.  In  A  King  and  No  King  the  wicked 
queen  pretends  that  she  has  a  son;  he  falls  violently  in  love 
with  his  supposed  sister;  the  queen,  who  hates  him  and  has 
tried  to  kill  him,  finally  removes  his  fear  of  incest  by  declaring 
that  really  he  is  not  her  son.  The  actors  are  the  same  and  the 
motives  are  the  same  as  in  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  but  the  situa- 
tion is  exactly  opposite.  In  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  in  order 
to  prevent  incest,  the  man  who  is  supposed  to  be  no  king  is 
shown  by  the  queen  to  be  a  king  and  her  son;  in  A  King  and 
No  King,  in  order  to  prevent  incest,  the  man  supposed  to  be  a 
king  is  shown  by  the  queen  to  be  no  king  and  not  her  son. 

I  conjecture,  therefore,  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  hav- 
ing taken  the  Thierry- Memberge  situation  from  Fauchet  and 
used  it  in  the  play,  later  developed  that  situation  into  the 
Arbaces-Panthea  plot,  changed  it  so  as  to  have  a  happy  ending, 
and  thus  created  A  King  and  No  King.  The  other  resem- 
blances between  the  two  plays — the  two  kings  in  each  play, 
one  of  whom  in  each  case  is  a  somewhat  furious  ranter,  the 
queen-mother  who  loathes  her  son,  the  cowardly  soldier  and 
the  comic  scenes — all  these  add  to  the  plausibility  of  a  direct 
connection  between  the  two  such  as  I  have  conjectured.  Fur- 
thermore the  elaboration  of  a  slightly  outlined  motive  into  a 
series  of  effective  situations  and  the  addition  of  a  happy  de- 
nouement are  characteristic  of  the  authors'  dramatic  methods 
and  mark  A  King  a?id  No  King  as  the  later  play.  If,  how- 
ever, my  conjecture  seems  to  any  one  fantastic  rather  than 
plausible,  it  at  least  detracts  nothing  from  the  rest  of  our 
evidence. 

Without  relying  on  a  conjecture  so  insusceptible  of  proof, 
we  have  no  small  accumulation  of  reasons  for  assigning  the 
play  in  its  original  form  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  to  a 
date  earlier  than  1611.  The  evidence  of  the  quartos  and  folio 

82 


is,  so  far  as  it  goes,  in  harmony  with  this  hypothesis.  The 
opinions  of  critics  and  the  evidence  of  verse  tests  point  to 
Beaumont  as  one  of  the  authors  and  to  Massinger  as  a  reviser. 
An  examination  of  the  sources  shows  that  the  authors  probably 
drew  their  material  from  a  history  well  known  in  the  first  dec- 
ade of  the  century  and  enables  us  to  decide  that  there  is  no  evi- 
dence for  the  date  1617.  Not  only  had  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
known  the  same  source  as  early  as  Philaster,  our  examination 
further  shows  that  Thierry  and  Theodoret  was  constructed  from 
a  narrative  in  much  the  same  way  as  Cupid's  Revenge  and  that 
in  its  most  salient  characteristics  it  is  of  the  same  type  as  the 
romances  which  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  writing  prior  to 
1611.  Beaumont's  large  share  in  these  romances  is  a  further 
indication  of  his  share  in  this  play,  which  is  still  further  shown 
by  its  strong  likeness  to  A  King  and  No  King.  In  this  like- 
ness I  found  ground  for  a  conjecture  in  regard  to  the  origin  of 
A  King  and  No  King  which  indicates  that  Thierry  and  Theo- 
doret preceded  it.  Bven  without  this  conjecture,  the  nature 
of  our  main  hypothesis  leads  us  to  assign  a  somewhat  early 
date;  for  if  Massinger  revised  a  play  of  Beaumont's  at  some 
time  before  1619,  the  probability  is  strong  that  the  play  was  an 
old  and  not  very  satisfactory  one.  The  probability  that  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher  had  read  Fauchet  when  they  wrote  Philaster 
adds  a  little  to  the  probability  of  an  early  date  which  we  may 
fix  conjecturally  at  I6O7.1 

Monsieur  Thomas.  First  quarto,  1639.  "  Acted  at  the 
Private  House  in  Black  Fryers. "  ' '  The  author,  John  Fletcher, 
Gent."  There  is  a  dedication  by  Rich.  Brome  who  speaks  of 
the  play  as  Fletcher's  whose  it  undoubtedly  is. 

Mr.  Fleay  conjectures  that  this  is  the  Father's  own  Son 2  on  the 
1639  list  of  the  Queen's  men.  Brome  was  writing  for  the 
Queen's  men  at  that  date,  and  the  play,  therefore,  seems  to 
have  been  in  their  possession.  Mr.  Fleay  concludes  that  it  was 
not  acted  by  the  King's  men,  but  must  have  come  down  to  the 
Queen's  men  from  the  Revels  children  and  must,  therefore, 
have  been  acted  about  1609,  i.  e.t  before  the  Revels  children 
left  Blackfriars  according  to  his  theory.  The  only  certain  date 
for  their  removal  from  Blackfriars,  however,  is  August,  1608; 
and  if  we  adopt  the  rest  of  Mr.  Fleay 's  plausible  conjecture, 
the  date  is  about  1607-8.  There  are  bits  of  songs3  which  are 

xThe  only  allusion  bearing  on  the  date  is  in  harmony  with  a  very 
early  date. 

"  Where  would  I  wish  myself  now?  in  the  Isle  of  Dogs,  so  I  might 
escape  scratching."  Ill,  2. 

This  seems  to  be  on  allusion  to  Nash's  Isle  of  Dogs,  acted  1597 
(Fleay,  Chr.  II,  149). 

2  See  Fleay's  comment  on  Halliwell-Phillips  reprint  of  a  droll  of  this 
name. 

8III,  3.  "  Go  from  my  window,"  etc.  K.  B.  P.,  Ill,  5.  Ill,  3,  men- 
tion of  the  ballad  of  Mile  End.  K.  B.  P.,  II,  2. 

83 


also  found  in  the  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  which  indicate 
that  this  date  is  approximately  correct.  Mr.  Oliphant  has  also 
noticed  that  "come  from  Tripoli"  occurs  in  Jonson's  Epiccene 
(acted  1609),  and  as  Jonson  was  some  time  in  writing  a  play, 
this  harmonizes  with  a  1607-8  date.1 

Four  Plays  in  One.  First  printed  in  folio  of  1647,  No  list 
of  actors  is  given  in  the  second  folio,  so  the  presumption  is 
that  it  was  not  acted  by  the  King's" men. 

The  critics  are  generally  agreed  in  assigning  the  induction 
and  the  first  two  plays  to  Beaumont  and  the  last  two  to 
Fletcher.2 

The  play  is  decidedly  spectacular.  There  is  the  machinery 
of  the  scaffolding  filled  with  spectators,  and  the  place  where 
"the  mist  ariseth,  the  rocks  remove."  Numerous  gods 
descend,  and  there  are  many  processions  and  dumb  shows. 
The  Four  Plays  are  given  in  the  form  of  an  entertainment  be- 
fore a  king  and  his  bride,  and  the  Triumph  of  Time  has  un- 
mistakably the  form  of  a  court  masque.  Theme,  spectacle, 
and  dances,  all  follow  the  recognized  fashion.  Mercury  and 
Time  appear;  "  one  half  of  a  cloud  [is]  drawn,"  "singersare 
discovered, ' '  then  the  other  half  is  drawn  and  Jupiter  seen  in  his 
glory."  The  main  masque  is  danced  by  Delight,  Pleasure, 
Lucre,  Craft,  Vanity,  etc.,  and  there  is  also  an  anti-masque  of 
a  ' '  Troop  of  Indians,  singing  and  dancing  wildly  about  Plutus. ' ' 
We  have  not  merely  an  introduction  of  masque-like  pageantry 
but  a  skillful  effort  to  combine  romantic  drama  and  a  court 
masque.3 

The  spectacular  business  with  Cupids  and  deities  and  alle- 
gorical personages  recalls  Cupid's  Revenge  and  makes  it  prob- 
able that  the  Four  Plays  were  presented  by  a  children's  com- 
pany. 

The  play  has  many  correspondences  with  other  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher's  plays.  In  the  induction  the  satire  on  the  citizens 
suggests  the  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle ',  and  a  similar  repre- 
sentation of  citizens  crowding  to  see  a  court  pageant  occurs  in 
the  Maid' s  Tragedy.*  In  the  Triumph  of  Death,  Gabriella's 
murder  of  Lavall  recalls  Hvadne's  murder  of  the  king  in  the 
Maid s Tragedy y5  in  the  Triumph  of  Fortune ,  the  opening  dia- 
logue between  Marius  and  Sophocles  recalls  the  one  between 
Arbaces  and  Tigranes  in  a  A  King  and  No  King;*  and  in  the 
Triumph  of  Love,  Violante  is  of  the  Bellario-Aspatia  type — a 
sort  of  half  finished  sketch.7 

1  Englische  Studien,  XV,  351. 

2  Mr.  Oliphant  also  sees  signs  of  Field. 

3  For  discussion  of  the  influence  of  the  masque  on  drama,  see  Chap. 
VII. 

*I,  2.  6V,  2.  6I,  i. 

7  For  example,  see  her  prattle  at  child-birth  and  in  the  scene  where 
Ferdinand  comes  with  the  poison. 

84 


In  one  respect  the  Triumph  of  Death  differs  from  Fletcher's 
other  plays;  it  contains  traces  of  the  tragedy  of  ghosts  and 
revenge  which  both  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  discarded.1  The 
plot  centers  on  the  revenge  upon  Lavall,  and  a  ghost  appears 
and  prophesies  his  fate.  Further,  the  business  of  throwing 
down  his  heart  is  quite  like  the  style  of  the  tragedy  of  blood; 
and  Perolot's  advice — 

"No;  take  him  dead -drunk  now,  without  repentance, 
His  lechery  inseamed  upon  him." 

— sounds  like  a  bit  from  an  old  revenge  play.  Now  Fletcher 
never  elsewhere  brings  a  ghost  on  the  stage  except  in  the 
Humourous  Lieutenant?  and  there  in  the  form  of  a  set  of  dancing 
spirits  conjured  up  by  a  magician;  the  presence  of  a  ghost 
here,  then,  seems  to  indicate  that  this  was  one  of  his  earliest 
tragedies,  written  at  a  time  when  he  was  still  slightly  influ- 
enced by  the  ghost-revenge  plays  that  we  find  so  common  from 
1600  to  1607. 

The  probability  that  the  play  was  presented  by  one  of  the 
children's  companies  for  whom  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were 
writing  1606-1611;  the  resemblance  to  other  plays  dating  be- 
fore 1611;  and  the  agreement  that  Beaumont  who  probably 
retired  about  1611,  had  a  share  in  the  composition;  all  make 
the  date  almost  certainly  earlier  than  1611. 

Owing  to  the  presence  of  the  ghost  and  the  resemblances  to 
the  other  romances  and  the  somewhat  less  matured  treatment 
in  comparison  with  them,  I  conjecture  a  date  several  years 
earlier.  The  use  of  the  anti-masque,  however,  fixes  the  early 
limit  at  the  time  of  the  introduction  of  anti-masques  into  the 
court  masques,  i6o8.3  I  do  not  think  the  Four  Plays  much 
later  than  i6o8.4 

The  Scornful  Lady.  First  quarto,  entered  S.  R.,  March  19, 
1616.  "  As  it  was  acted  with  great  applause  by  the  children 

1  There  is  the  motive  of  revenge  for  a  father  in  Philaster. 

2 There  is  a  ghost  in  the  Lover's  Progress  (III,  5)  and  there  are  spirits 
in  the  Prophetess,  but  both  of  these  plays  are  in  very  large  part  by 
Massinger  ;  in  neither  have  we  an  admonishing,  revengeful  spirit  as  in 
the  Triumph  of  Death. 

3 See  p.  28  ante. 

4  Mr.  Fleay  fixes  the  date  at  1608,  because  "the  Yorkshire  Tragedy 
was  published  1608  (S.  R.,  May  21)  as  'oneof  the  Four  Plays  in  OneJ 
as  if  to  delude  the  unwary  purchaser  into  the  belief  that  he  was  buy- 
ing one  of  the  plays  then  being  performed."  All  the  other  authorities 
that  I  have  consulted  (W.  C.  Hazlitt's  Manual,  1892.  Hans  W.  Singer, 
Das  Biirgerlich  Trauerspiel,  1891 ;  Knight's  and  Malone's  Editions 
of  Shakspere)  agree  in  stating  that  the  reference  to  the  Four  Plays  in 
One,  is  not  in  the  1608  quarto  of  the  Yorkshire  Tragedy,  but  only  in 
the  1619  quarto.  I  have  not  been  able  to  examine  the  1608  quarto  and 
so  cannot  be  sure  of  the  facts ;  the  1619  quarto  is  as  described  by 
Hazlitt  and  the  others.  Fleay's  conjecture,  even  if  based  on  fact,  is 
by  no  means  certain. 

85 


of  her  Maiestie's  Revels  in  the  Blackfriers."  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  are  both  named  as  authors,  which  is  doubtless  correct. 

Mr.  Fleay  thinks  it  was  acted  not  later  than  December,  1609, 
for  then,  according  to  his  theory,  the  Revels  children  left  Black- 
friars,  nor  earlier  than  1609,  for  then  began  the  Cleve  wars 
referred  to  in  act  V,  scene  3.  Since  he  thinks  that  the  theaters 
did  not  open  until  after  the  deaths  from  the  plague  dropped 
below  forty  a  week  (they  exceeded  forty  up  to  Nov.  30,  1609), 
and  since  he  thinks  the  King's  men  occupied  the  theater  De- 
cember 25,  he  has  the  date  of  the  play  fixed  within  about  two 
weeks.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  theories  by  which  he 
reaches  this  conclusion  are  groundless. 

There  are  a  couple  of  difficulties  apart  from  his  theories 
which  he  has  not  noticed.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  the  statement  in  the  quarto  of  1616  refers  to  the 
play's  first  presentation.  The  play  was  a  popular  one,  and  the 
reference  may  quite  as  plausibly  be  to  the  1616  performance. 
Rossiter's  company  was  also  known  as  her  Majesty's  Revels 
and  played  in  Whitefriars  1610-15,  but  in  1615-17  was  attempt- 
ing to  build  a  new7  theater  in  Blackfriars.  The  play  may  have 
been  given  there.  Amends  for  Ladies,  1618,  was  published 
as  acted  at  the  Blackfriars  both  by  the  Prince's  servants  and 
the  Lady  Elizabeth's,  and  may,  as  Fleay  suggests,  have 
also  been  acted  at  this  new  Blackfriars.1  More  plausibly, 
perhaps,  the  allusion  to  Blackfriars  may  indicate  that  the  old 
theater  was  sometimes  temporarily  occupied  by  other  companies 
than  the  King's  men. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  very  doubtful  if  the  passages  referring 
to  the  Cleve  wars  were  written  as  early  as  1609.  The  facts 
about  the  Cleve  wars  are  as  follows:2  John  William,  Duke  of 
Cleves,  died  March  25,  1609.  A  quarrel  ensued  in  regard  to 
the  succession,  and  Leopold  of  Austria  took  possession  of  the 
capitol,  Juliers.  The  assassination  of  Henry  IV  of  France 
(April,  1610),  interrupted  his  plans  against  Austria,  but  on 
Sept.  i,  1 6 10,  Prince  Maurice  of  Orange  took  Juliers  with  the 
aid  of  troops  supplied  by  France  and  the  English  forces  then  in 
the  service  of  the  States  under  Sir  Edward  Cecil.  The  "cast  Cleve 
captain  "  3  in  the  play  must  refer  to  these  English  auxiliaries,  but 
they  took  no  part  in  the  war  earlier  than  1610,  and  there  was  in 
fact  no  fighting  until  1610.  So,  although  the  passages  may  date 
any  time  up  to  1614,  when  the  wars  closed,  they  could  hardly 
have  been  written  as  early  as  December,  1609. 

There  is  still  further  evidence  in  this  matter  in  several  allu- 
sions to  Cleve  wars  in  Field's  Woman  is  a  Weathercock*  where 

!Chr.  I,  201. 

2  The  Life  and  Death  of  John  of  Barnevelt.  J.  L.  Motley.  Vol. 
I,  60-66.  Rapin,  Vol.  IX,  p.  324. 

3V,  4-  *I,   2. 

86 


one  of  the  char;-  sih0ut  to  start  for  Cleveland. 

pfeydi  .'tween  Jan.  1610  and  Nov.  I6U.1     The  reference 

in   the  Scornful  Lady  may  well  enough  date  at  about 

•  r  allusions  in  the  play  are  indecisive  as  to  date,  but  on 

the  whole  class  ;   plays  at  least  as  early  as   1610-11. 

Knights  of  the  vSun,  Rosicleer,"  2  refers  to  the  Mirrour  of 

1602),  also  alluded  to  in  the  Knight  of  the  Burn- 

There  is  also  an  allusion  to  Madcap,8  a  pamphlet 

Nicholas  Breton,  also  alluded  to  in  the  Coxcomb.*     A  refer- 

building  a  hospital  recalls  a  similar  one  in  the  Woman 

There  is  one  certain  6  and  one  possible 7  slur  at  Hamlet. 

The  reference  to  the  Apocrypha8  probably  cannot  refer  to  a 

bout  the  authorized  edition  as  Mr.  Fleay  thinks. 

oile  the  allusion  in  the  quarto  to  Blackfriars 
is  puzzling,  there  is  little  question  that  the  play  is  as  early  as 
1611. 

>/  Weapons.    First  printed  in  folio  of  1647.    No 
actor-list.     A  passage  in  the  epilogue  at  a  late  revival  refers 
:s  the  author  and  rather  implies  that  he  only  wrote 
a  part  of  the  play. 

Mr.  Fleay  identifies  it  with  the  Devil  of  Dowgate,  licenced 

reasoning  does  not  enable  me  to  see  the  slir \test 

connection  between  the  two  titles.     All  the  critics  discofjr  the 

k  of  one  or  more  writers  besides  Fletcher:  Mr.  A.  W  /Ward, 

ad  Mr.  Oliphant  giving  a  share  to  Beaumont! 

>  the  play  to  Fletcher  and  Rowley,  Mr.  Boyle 

to  Fletcher  and  an  unknown ;  Mr.  Bullen  is  reminded  of  Mid- 

dleton  and  Rowley.     Admitting  the  possibility  of  a  revision, 

[  think  it  probable  that  a  part  of  the  original  play  was  bv 

Beaumont. 

A  good  deal  of  the  p.  >rose,  where  the  determination 

\  authorship  is  very  precarious,  but  the  Pompey  part  is  much 

like  the  burlesque  in  the  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  and  the 

nd  seems   probably  by  Beaumont       In  the 

igned  to  another  author  than  Fletcher, 

the  verse  tests  also  agree  with  those  for  the  Knight  of  the  Burning 

«li 

*n 

7  m,  • 

"I'll  hear  no  more  o;  this  Apocrypha;    bind  it  by  n 

Crated  from  the  rest  of 
le   passage   has  only  a  general 


>'e.1  The  proportion  of  double  endings  is  a  little  large  and  of 
run-on  lines  a  little  small  for  the  averages  set  up  by  the  verse  ana- 
l}rzers  of  Beaumont's  other  plays,  but  even  in  comparison  with 
these  there  is  no  great  discrepancy,  particularly  in  the  case  of 
the  first  scene  of  the  last  act.  If  we  remember  that  his  work 
may  be  present  only  in  an  altered  form,  there  is  no  improba- 
bility in  assigning  a  portion  of  the  play  to  Beaumont.  If  there 
is  any  evidence  of  a  date  as  early  as  1611-12,  the  evidence  of 
his  hand  becomes  convincing. 

The  internal  evidence,  although  not  convincing,  seenis  to  favor 
such  an  early  date.  In  I,  2.  Priscian,  a  pretended  soldier  is 
introduced  as  a  veteran  of  twenty  year*  e.  He  then  goes 

on  to  state  that  his  first  battle  was  "  Alcazar  m  Barbary,  where 
Stukely  fell  and  royal  Sebastian."  This  was  in  August,  1578. 
He  then  goes  on  to  tell  of  n's  rumored  escape  and 

various  journey  ings,  which  were  matters  of  common  report,2 
and  next  to  describe  his  last  battle,  4<  that  memorable  skirmish 
at  Newport"  with  special  praise  of  the  Scotch  forces.  This 
was  July  22,  1600.  The  details  given  of  the  battle  and  the 
account  of  Sebastian  make  it  probable  that  they  were  written 
not  very  long  after  1600.  Such  a  reference  might  have  been 
made  as  late  as  1620,  but  in  thus  padding  his  dialogue,  a  writer 
for  <-he  stage  would  be  much  more  likely  to  refer  to  events  still 
farm  Jar  to  the  public. 

In  ,  2,  the  puppet  show  of  Ninevah  is  alluded  to  as  also  in 
the  Ki\-:%ht  of  the  Burning  Pestle*  Bartholomew  Fair*  and 


1  The  Woman  Hater  is  generally  assigned  to  Beaumont  alone,  the 
Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  seems  to  me  also  his  in  the  main. 


\ERSK 

HUN- 

LINES 

I! 

LINES 

Wit  at  Several  Weapons,  II,  2, 
"      "         "              "           11,4, 

221 
89 

57 
25 

43 
19 

<  (         <  (              <  >•                       11                  V     T 

27 

26 

Total, 

46l 

109 

88 

Percentage, 

21.  1 

19.1 

Woman  ffater, 

17 

22.7 

Knight  of  Burning  Pestle, 

23-2 

18 

Philaster, 
Percentage  of  V,  I  (Wit  at  Several 
Weapons)  alone, 

15-2 

18 

26.2 
17.2 

Philaster  serves 
fairly  for    Beau- 
mout  canon. 

Mr.  Boyle,  whose  figures  I  have  taken  in  the  above  table,  strangely 
assigns  IV,  2  and  IV,  3  to  the  second  author  (not  Fletcher.)  They  seem 
to  me  clearly  Fletcher's,  as  the  verse  tests  strongly  indicate. 

2  See  Dyce. 

3  III,  2. 

«V,  i,  (1614). 


Every  Woman  in  Her  Humour?  There  is  also  an allusion  * 
to  "  a  play  at  the  Bull  t'other  day,"  but  the  date  of  the  open- 
ing of  the  Red  Bull  is  uncertain.  The  scoff  is  similar  to  those 
in  the  Burning  Pestle.  An  allusion  to  the  two  exchanges  *  must 
date  after  the  erection  of  the  new  exchange.  It  was  begun 
in  1608  and  finished  in  1609.  This  may  be  an  addition  of  the 
late  revisers;  it  is  iti  the  Rowley  part  as  assigned  by  both 
Fleay  and  Oliphant.  If  in  the  first  form  of  the  play,  that 
cannot  be  earlier  than  1609. 

These  last  allusions  would  fit  in  well  enough  with  a  1609-10 
date,  although  the  speeches  of  the  soldier  would  fit  better  a 
date  several  years  earlier. 

The  Captain.      First  printed  in  folio  of   1647.     Played  at 
.court  by  King's  men  in  winter  i6i2-i3.4 

In  the  folio  of  1679  the  scenes  are  marked  and  the  following 
list  of  actors  given:  Richard  Burbage,  Henry  Condell,  Wil- 
liam Ostler,  Alexander  Cooke.  All  four  played  in  Jonson's 
Alchemist,  acted  by  the  King's  men,  1610,  and  in  Catiline,  1611. 
Ostler  joined  the  King's  men  from  the  Revels  children  proba- 
bly in  1608; 6  Cooke  died  Feb.  25,  1614,  and  was  'sick  of 
body  '  Jan.  30,  i6i4.6  The  date  of  the  play  is  thus  fixed.  1608— 
Jan. -March,  1613,  date  of  court  presentation. 

Mr.  Fleay  thinks  the  present  version  with  the  "scene, 
Venice,  Spain,"  is  an  altered  version  made  for  the  court  per- 
formance. Fleay,  Macaulay,  Boyle,  and  Oliphant,  all  give 
Beaumont  a  share  in  the  play,  though  they  all  think  his  share 
slight.7 

The  song  "Tell  me  dearest  what  is  love?  "  is'ibund  in  part 
in  the  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle;  the  allusions  to  Lusty 
Lawrence  and  Don  Diego  are  common  in  plays  of  this  period 
and  indicate  nothing  definitely  in  regard  to  the  date.  A  pas- 
sage closely  resembling  one  in  the  Faithful  Shepherdess  has 
been  noted  by  Mr.  Boyle,8 

The  play  cannot  be  later  than.  1612,  and  a  reasonable  con- 
jecture is  1611. 

Second  Group.     Plays  from  1612  to  1618^  inclusive. 
There  is  no  convincing  evidence  that  Beaumont  had  a  share 


14to,  1609,  acted  1602?    (Fleay.) 
2 II,  2.    See  note  p.  60  for  date  of  opening  Red  Bull. 
8V,  i. 

4  So  Fleay  ;  according  to  Oldyis  Ms.  note  in  Langbaine,  May  20,  1613, 
but  this  date  doubtless  applies  to  the  payment  not  the  performance. 

e  p.  19  ante. 
•«.e  Memoirs  of  Principal  Actors  in  the  Plays  of  Shakespeare.    J. 

I  Her.     Shaks.  Soc.,  1846,  p.  187. 

7  This  play  furuisl^s  a  good  example  of  Mr.  Oliphant's  subtle  analy- 
sis.    He  divides  it  between  Fletcher,  Fletcher  and  Beaumont,  Beau- 
mont, Fletcher  and  Massinger,  Beaumont  and  Massinger,  Rowley. 
*  English  [I,  40,  Act  I,  sc.  3. 

89 


They  were  written  by  F  -  by 

n  collaboration  yu  three  plays 

Henry  VIII,  the  Two  Nobk  ,  there  is 

1  with  Shakspere,  and  these  plays 

in  connection  with  plays  of 

ix    of  the  rer.i;r  .  :ted  by  the 

ive  lists  of  actors  in  the  1679 
determinate  with  some  certainty.     Of  t 
pla  -i  1  afford   no  clue  in  respect  to  their  date.     ' 

have  no  lists  of  actors  and  are  possibly  by  other  companies 
than  the  Kir  and  are,  therefore,  as 

t?,.16?3  ^ks  Flet-  iie  I.ady 

Elizabeth's  men.     We  have  seen  how  littJ-  as  sup- 

affords.  ,  ,.,od 

the  1619  is  fully  prov  and  bec 

ere  is  no  evidence  for  dating  them  earlier  than  1612.     I  pre- 
•s  only  in  the  case  of  plays  where  Fleay's  conclusions 
important  modificatio 

Replay  -,btful  dat 

r;  or  Rol  Olay 

sometimes  been  dated  after  Jon*. 

•pposed  imitation  in  Act   .: 

doubtfr  ta  'here 

is,  who  was  the  imitator.     Fletcher  undoubi 
•lay;  and  the:  for  Mr. 

!iat  ti)e  !  •  e-writtt  'ian  once,  but  tht 

act  authors!  i 
ible. 

probab1,  .  >ay 

s  evidence  is  extremely 
doub; 

t  The  was  licensed  in  1633 

orrected  by  Shirley."     Fit  ion,   that  it 

tally  an  early  play  for  some  other  company  than  the  King's 
men,  is  reas<>  V  number  of  allusions  to  books  (III,  3,) 


, 

not  been  identified,  tyit  may  Fools 

Armin's  Nest  of  Nin 

s  Bush.     Dekke^  London   (  1608) 

!ently  used  by  t1  >rs,  and  this  is  the  only  *afe 

<  plays  of  the  group  may  be  'th  more 

Folio,  1647;  no  actor-list.     Mr.   Fl; 
entifyitwith  ..-(S.  R..  -\Carden 

acted  at  court,  1612-13.     No'  ace  no  evi- 

dence to   support   this   theory;    he  unwittingly  disproves  it. 
the  date  of  the  original  pi 


he  says,  and  then  goes  on  to  state  that  it  is  founded  on  Cer- 
vantes Las  das  Doncellas  one  of  the  Novelas  Exemplares,  but 
these  were  first  printed  in  1613.  The  play,  therefore,  cannot 
be  Cardenio  and  must  date  after  1613. 

Bonduca.  Folio,  1643:  list  of  actors  in  second  folio.  Field, 
who  apparently  joined  the  King's  men  about  1616,  is  not  on  the 
list.  Ostler  is  on  the  list,  and  his  name  appears  in  none  of  the 
1616-19  plays.  For  these  reasons  Fleay  dates  the  play  before 
1616.  All  of  the  eight  actors  on  the  list  acted  in  Catiline,  1611, 
and  all  but  two,  Ostler  and  Robinson,  in  the  Loyal  Subject, 
1618.  The  date,  then,  may  be  as  early  as  1611  or  as  late 
as  1616.  William  Eggleston,  whose  name  is  on  the  three  lists, 
seems  to  have  left  the  King's  men  for  a  period  including  1613, 
when  he  acted  in  the  Honest  Man's  Revenge  with  the  Lady 
Elizabeth's  men.  Cooke  and  Hemings  acted  in  Catiline  but 
not  in  Bonduca;  Cooke  died  Feb.  25,  1614.  Thus  it  seems 
probable  that  Bonduca  was  first  played  after  Cooke' s  retire- 
ment and  after  Kggleston's  return  from  the  Lady  Elizabeth's 
company:  /.  e. ,  1614-1616. 

Valentinian.  The  actor-list  points  to  a  date  very  close  to  that 
of  Bonduca. 

The  Knight  of  Malta.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this 
play  like  others  which  have  both  Field  and  Burbadge  on 
the  list,  dates  1616-19.  Mr.  Macaulay  and  Mr.  Boyle,  how- 
ever, both  found  evidence  of  Beaumont.  They  did  this  in 
ignorance  of  the  late  date  of  the  play;  Mr.  Fleay  gives  their 
Beaumont  portion  to  Field.  Mr.  Oliphant  is  in  doubt  between 
Field  and  Beaumont  and  gets  out  of  the  difficulty  by  consider- 
ing the  play  a  revised  version  by  Fletcher,  Massinger  and  Field 
of  an  old  play  by  Beaumont.  Some  parts  of  the  play  certainly 
remind  one  of  Beaumont,  but  there  is  no  safe  ground  for  Mr. 
Oliphant 's  hypothesis. 

Third  Group.     Plays  from  1619  to  1625,  inclusive. 

In  this  group  we  are  able  to  determine  the  dates  with  certain- 
ty and  definiteness.  Moreover,  so  many  plays  must  be  assigned 
to  these  seven  years,  there  is  small  probability  that  any  other 
plays  belong  here.  I  have  added  nothing  to  Mr.  Fleay 's  re- 
sults and  substracted  little.  The  dates  before  1622  are  deter- 
mined by  the  actor-lists  or  court  presentations;  from  1622  on, 
we  have  the  dates  of  licensing  in  Herbert's  office  book. 

The  Wandering  Lovers,  licensed  Dec.  6,  1623,  is  reasonably 
identified  by  Mr.  Fleay  with  the  Lover* V  Progress.  Two  other 
non-extant  plays,  The  Devil  of  Dowgate  and  the  Unfortunate 
Piety,  he  identifies  with  Wit  at  Several  Weapons  and  the  Double 
Marriage,  respectively;  but  these  identifications  seem  to  me 
very  doubtful.  The  Coronation,  one  of  a  number  of  plays  not 
licensed  until  after  Fletcher's  death,  was  printed  as  his  in 


1640  and  again  in  the  1679  folio,  but  was  claimed  by  Shirley. 
The  Wild  Goose  Chase  was  first  printed  in  1652,  and  Sir  John 
'van  Olden  Barnaveldt  in  1883.  All  the  other  plays  were  first 
printed  in  the  folio  of  1647. 

Conclusion. 

The  following  list  gives  the  plays  by  groups  and  in  a  con- 
jecturally  chronological  order.  The  exact  date  of  many  of  the 
plays  cannot  be  determined.  All  plays  in  which  either  Beau- 
mont or  Fletcher  had  a  share  are  included. 


First  Period. 

Woman's  Prize;  or,  The  Tamer  Tamed. 

Wit  at  Several  Weapons.     First  version. 

The  Woman  Hater. 

Love's  Cure,  or  The  Martial  Maid. 

Thierry  and  Theodoret. 

Monsieur  Thomas. 

The  Knight  of  The  Burning  Pestle. 

Four  Plays  in  One. 

The  Faithful  Shepherdess. 

Philaster;  or  Love  lies  a-bleeding. 

The  Coxcomb. 

The  Maid's  Tragedy. 

Cupid's  Revenge. 

The  Scornful  Lady. 

A  King  and  No  King. 

The  Captain. 

Second  Period. 

The  Nice  Valour;  or  the  Passionate  Madman. 

The  Night  Walker;  or  the  Little  Thief. 

The  Beggar's  Bush. 

Cardenio. 

The  Mask  of  The  Inner  Temple. 

The  Two  Noble  Kinsmen. 

Henry  VIII. 

The  Honest  Man's  Fortune. 

Wit  Without  Money. 

Love's  Pilgrimage. 

The  Faithful  Friends. 

The  Chances. 

Bonduca. 

Valentinian. 

The  Jeweller  of  Amsterdam. 

The  Bloody  Brother;  or  Rollo,  Duke  of  Normandy. 

The  Queen  of  Corinth. 

The  Loyal  Subject. 


1604? 
1605  ?"•< 
1606?    ' 
1606?  CJ 
1607?  '"*- 
1607-8? 
1607-8?  ^ 
1608? 
1608? 
1608?  - 
1609? 
1609? 
1609-10?  ~ 
1610— ii ?  ' 
1611  h 
1611  ? 


1612?? 

1612?? 

1612?? 

1612-13 

1613 

1613? 

1613? 

1613 

1614? 

1614? 

1614? 

1615? 

1615? 

1615-16? 

1616-17? 

1617?? 

c  1617 

1618 


>b 


92 


The  Mad  Lover.  c  1618 

The  Knight  of  Malta.  c  1618 

Third    Period. 

The  Humourous  Lieutenant.  c  1619? 

Sir  John  van  Olden  Barnaveldt.  1619  ? 

The  Custom  of  the  Country.  c  1619 

The  Double  Marriage.  c  1619 

The  Laws  of  Candy.  01619 

The  Little  French  Lawyer.  c  1620 

The  False  One.  c  1620 

Woman  Pleased.  c  1620 

The  Island  Princess.  c  1620 

The  Pilgrim.  c  1621 

The  Wild  Goose  Chase.  c  1621 

The  Prophetess.  1622 

The  Sea  Voyage.  1622 

The  Spanish  Curate.  1622 

The  Maid  in  The  Mill.  1623 

The  Lover's* Progress  (The  Wandering  Lovers).  1623 

The  Fair  Maid  of  The  Inn.  1623-4 

A  Wife  for  a  Month.  1624 

Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife.  1624 

The  Noble  Gentleman.  1625? 

Coronation.  1 625  ?  ? 

The  Elder  Brother.  1 624-5  ?  ? 

The  Devil  of  Dowgate  and  The  Unfortunate  Piety  are  non- 
extant,  and  it  is  not  certain  that  Fletcher  had  any  share  in 
them. 

In  the  eight  years  covered  by  the  first  group  1  have  assigned 
sixteen  plays;  in  the  seven  years  of  the  second  group,  twenty 
plays  (including  one  masque);  in  the  seven  years  of  the 
third  group  twenty  plays  and  probably  two  others  left  un- 
finished. In  the  third  group  where  the  dates  are  fixed,  Fletcher 
on  the  average  wrote  the  whole  or  parts  of  three  plays  a  year. 
The  second  period  shows  about  the  same  average  production, 
and  the  first  considerably  less.  An  examination  of  the  entire 
chronology  thus  does  not  diminish  the  possibility  of  assigning 
other  plays  to  the  first  period.  The  dates  of  a  number  of  the 
plays  in  the  second  group  are  purely  conjectural,  and  some  of 
them  might  as  well  be  assigned  to  the  first  period.  The  first 
versions  of  some  of  the  later  plays  may  also  belong,  as  Mr. 
Oliphant  thinks,  in  the  first  period.  At  all  events  the  entire 
chronology  strengthens  rather  than  weakens  the  probability  that 
sixteen  plays  at  least  can  be  dated  before  1612. 

Of  the  plays  of  the  first  group,  without  considering  the 
eight  I  have  conjecturally  placed  there,  the  eight  certainly 

93 


acted  before  the  end  of  1 6 1 1  present  such  variety  of  therne  and 
method  that  a  considerable  period  must  be  allowed  for  their 
production.  It  is  a  long  way,  for  example,  from  the  immature 
burlesque  and  the  experimenting  in  Jonson's  manner  of  the 
Woman  Hater  to  such  an  original  and  brilliant  comedy  as  the 
Scornful  Lady.  Beaumont's  poetic  development  was  certainly 
remarkably  rapid,  but  when  we  consider  that  the  plays  which 
have  given  him  a  high  rank  among,  English  poets  and  won 
him  an  immediate  contemporary  reputation  among  the  first 
dramatists  were  probably  all  written  by  the  close  of  161 1,  it  is 
impossible  to  believe  that  his  first  play  was  produced  so  late 
as  1607.  When  we  consider^  the  range  of  plays  written  by 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  in  collaboration,  the  success  they  at- 
tained, and  the  fame  of  their  partnership,  it  is  impossible  to 
limit  the  period  of  their  collaboration  to  four  years.1  Judging 
merely  from  their  eight  plays  certainly  acted  before  1612,  we 
might  feel  confident  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  began  writing 
earlier  than  1607.  In  considering  the  few  facts  known  of  the 
lives  of  these  two  friends,  we  found  a  number  of  indications  that 
they  commenced  their  dramatic  careers  earlier  than  has  generally 
been  stated;  and  there  was  absolutely  no  reason  to  believe  they 
had  not  commenced  as  early  as  the  production  in  1 605  of  Vol- 
pone  to  which  each  contributed  verses.  A  study  of  their  lives 
and  plays  amply  substantiates  the  definite  evidence  furnished 
by  the  Woman 's  Prize,  Love's  Cure,  and  the  Woman  Hater 
that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  writing  plays  1604-1606. 

Among  the  plays  surely  acted  by  the  end  of  1611,  we  find 
four — Philaster,  the  Maid' s  Tragedy,  Cupid's  Revenge,  and  A 
King  and  No  King — which  present  a  definite  type.  These, 
with  the  Four  Plays  in  One,  and  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  which  I 
also  assign  before  1 6 1 1 ,  form  a  series  of  romances  which  possess 
common  characteristics.  These  plays,  while  showing  marked 
similarities  in  material,  characters,  situations,  and  general 
treatment,  present  differences  in  versification  and  methods  of 
construction  which  require  more  time  for  their  production  than 
Mr.  Fleay  assigns.2  Critics,  for  example,  generally  note  the 
marked  development  in  Beaumont's  style  from  Philaster  to  the 
Maid' s  Tragedy.  There  seems,  too,  some  ground  for  saying 
that  the  Four  Plays  mark  the  experiment,  Philaster  the  devel- 
opment, the  Maid' s  Tragedy  the  perfection,  and  Ciipid'  s  Re- 
venge_\hz  recapitulation;  and  similarly  that  Thierry  and  Theo- 
doret is  an  experiment  in  a  form  of  which  A  King  and  No  King 
is  the  more  highly  developed  representative.  Such  conjectures 
aside,  it  is  important  to  remember  that  these  romances  repre- 

lCf.  Fleay  who  limits  it  to  1608-1611. 

2  Fleay  places  Philaster,  the  Maid's  Tragedy,  Cupid's  Revenge,  and 
A  King  and  No  King  in  the  years  1610-11. 


94 


sent  practically  the  whole  of  Beaumont's  life  work.  While 
we  must  make  due  allowance  for  the  precocity  of  his  genius 
and  of  Fletcher's,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  their  romances 
did  not  have  their  origin,  development  and  perfection  all  within 
a  year  or  two.  An  examination  of  those  six  plays  must  con- 
vince any  one  that  our  chronology  is  conservative  in  assigning 
early  dates.1  Plays  like  the  Maid's  Tragedy  and  A  King  and 
No  King  are  not  written  without  some  experimenting  ;  the  six 
romances  must  cover  a  period  of  several  years  preceding  1611. 

This  conclusion  is  of  particular  importance  with  reference 
to  the  date  of  Philaster.  According  to  Dryden  it  was  the  first 
play  of  its  authors  that  was  popular,  and  no  one  questions  that 
it  preceded  the  Maid '  s  Tragedy  and  A  King  and  No  King.  We 
have  also  seen  reasons  to  think  it  earlier  than  Cupid' s  Revenge. 
These  considerations  support  the  generally  accepted  conjecture 
that  the  date  of  Philaster  is  as  early  as  1608. 

At  all  events,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  had  produced  four, 
and  probably  six  romances,  by  the  time  that  Shakspere  had 
written  three,  and  they  had  written  at  least  four,  and  probably 
ten,  other  plays  by  the  end  of  the  same  period.  They  were 
then  recognized  as  leading  dramatists  of  the  day.  There  is  no 
certain  early  limit  for  the  date  of  any  of  these  sixteen  plays 
except  A  King  and  No  King  and  the  Scornful  Lady.  Some  of 
them  were  probably  acted  as  early  as  1604-5  >  and  of  the  ro- 
mances, Philaster  is  certainly  not  one  of  the  latest. 

While  we  cannot  be  certain  about  the  date  of  Cymbeline,  the 
Winter1  s  Tale  and  the  Tempest  were  not  acted  until  after 
Philaster.  That  play  was  certainly  acted  by  the  King's  men 
while  Shakspere  was  still  writing  for  the  company.  So,  prob- 
ably, were  others  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  plays  ;  their  fame 
was  certainly  high  before  he  retired  from  the  theater.  Our 
investigation  makes  it  probable  that  Philaster  and  other  of  their 
romances  preceded  any  one  of  his.  The  bare  facts  make  it 
clear,  that,  so  far  as  the  chronology  is  concerned  there  was 
opportunity  for  direct  influence  between  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
and  Shakspere. 

1  Cf.  Mr.  Oliphant's  Chronology. 


95 


CHAPTER  VI. 
THE   DRAMA,   1601-1611. 

Before  proceeding  to  examine  and  compare  the  romances  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  those  of  Shakspere,  it  is  necessary 
to  understand  the  condition  of  the  drama  when  they  were  writ- 
ten.    Only  by  a  comparison  with  contemporary  plays  can  we 
determine  in  what  respects  the  romances  of  either  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  or  Shakspere  represent  a  distinct  dramatic  type. 
Certainly  these  romances  were  not  complete  innovations.     By 
1609  very  little  will  be  found  in  plots,  situations,  or  types  of 
Icharacter  which  had  not  been  tried  before.     In  the  thirty  pre- 
ijceding  years,  a  host  of  ingenious  play-wrights  had  been  ex- 
|perimenting  with  new  forms  and  developing  old  ones  ;  and  by 
id  1 609  the  dramatists  had  a  valuable  fund  of  both  experimental 
and  successful  work  by  which  they  were  quick  to  profit.     The 
romances   of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  belong  to  an  advanced 
stage  in  the  rapid  development  of  the  Elizabethan  drama;  they 
naturally  owe  much  to  all  that  had  gone  before;  but  we  can 
judge  of  their  novelty  from  a  study  of  their  immediate  con- 
temporaries. 

A  glance  at  the  kinds  of  plays  which  prevailed  on  the  stage 
when  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  began  to  write  will  also  help  us 
in  answering  other  questions.  Even  if  their  plays  form  a  dis- 
tinct class,  were  they  not  the  natural  outcome  of  manifest 
dramatic  tendencies  of  the  time  ?  Supposing  that  their  ro- 
mances are  found  to  resemble  Shakspere' s,  may  not  this  simi- 
larity be  due  to  the  fact  that  romantic  plays  were  common  at 
the  time,  that  man}'  dramatists  were  experimenting  in  the 
field,  that  romance  was  in  the  air  ?  If  the  resemblance  between 
the  two  sets  of  romances  can  be  established,  can  we  argue  that 
one  must  have  been  the  cause  and  the  other  the  effect  ?  Evidently 
such  questions  can  be  convincingly  answered  only  by  reference 
to  the  plays  acted  before  and  during  the  years  of  the  romances. 

From  1 60 1  to  1609,  from  Twelfth  Night  to  Cymbeline,  we 
know  that*  Shakspere  was  writing  plays  very  different  in  most 
respects  from  his  romances.  During  that  period  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  were  beginning  their  dramatic  careers  and  trying 
various  kinds  of  plays.  Possibly  as  early  as  1607  they  pro- 
duced their  first  romance  ;  Sy  the  end  oi  1611,  they  had  pro- 
duced the  six  plays  which  for  our  purpose  exemplify  thejjpe. 
By"  this  Lime  Beaumont  had  apparently  finished  his  dramatic 
work,  and  the  reputation  of  both  men  before  the  public  and 

96 


among  their  fellow-poets  was  very  high.  Shakspere 's  three 
romances  were  produced  with^some  certainty  in  me  years  iboo- 
1611.  Hence  the  period  which  we  must  examine  for  plays  of- 
fering resemblances  to  the  romances  and  for  any  influences 
which  might  have  led  to  the  romances  is  the  decade  preceding 
1611.  That  will  take  us  back  to  the  time  when  Shakspere 
turned  from  English  histories  and  romantic  comedies  to  trage- 
dies and  to  several  years  before  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  began 
to  write  for  the  stage.  It  is  not  likely  that  they  were  influ- 
enced very  extensively  by  plays  earlier  than  1601.  Many  of 
these  were  to  be  read  in  quartos  and  some  still  held  the  stage,  1 
but  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  shared  with  some  other  dramatists 
of  the  time  in  a  growing  consciousness  of  the  requirements  j 
and  possibilities  of  their  art  and  certainly  had  no  intention  of 
returning  to  the  practices  of  earlier  days.  They  were  young 
men,  the  avowed  disciples  of  Jonson.  and  apparently  on  friendly 
terms  with  Chapman,  Webster,  and  ShaEspere^and  the^Lwrote 
their  most  successful  plays  for  a  company  whicTTwas  then  pro- 
ducing many  of  Jonson' s  most  carefully  wrought  dramas  and 
Shakspere' s  great  series  of  tragedies.  They  began  to  write, 
moreover,  just  at  the  culminating  time  of  the  Elizabethan 
drama.  The  period  1601-1611  is  thejDgriod  of  Dekker,  Hey- 
wood,  Middleton,  Chapman,  Webster,  of\fonson's  best  work, 
and  ot  the  fulF  maturity  of  ShakspereTs  geniusT  An  examina- 
tion of  the  plays  oFthese  years  wilTcertainly  show  various  in- 
fluences which  acted  on  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  will  also 
include  all  the  data  necessary  for  determining  to  what  extent 
they  produced  a  new  type  of  romantic  drama. 

Such  an  examination  to  be  absolutely  thorough  would  in- 
volve a  research  into  the  chronology  of  all  the  plays  of  the 
period.  I  cannot  attempt  this  and  must  rely  on  the  investigations 
of  others,  especially  those  of  Mr.  Fleay.  Fortunately,  how- 
ever, we  can  obtain  a  practically  exhaustive  list  of  the  extant 
plays  which  were  first  acted  in  this  decade  1601-1611.  Hen- 
slow' s  Diary  1601-1603,  the  lists  of  plays  published  on  the 
breaking  up  of  the  various  children's  companies,  Jonson' s  state- 
ments in  the  folio  edition  of  his  plays,  and  the  researches  of 
Shaksperean  students  furnish  a  good  deal  of  indisputable  evi- 
dence. Probably  the  only  plays  which  we  shall  be  in  danger 
of  omitting  are  some  which  may  have  been  first  acted  in  this 
period  but  were  greatly  revised  at  a  later  date.  We  can  cer- 
tainly obtain  a  fairly  accurate  idea  of  the  kinds  of  plays  which 
prevailed  in  the  decade.  Here  I  shall  endeavor  to  include  in 
a  rough  classification  all  the  extant  plays  which  were  probably 
acted  in  these  years  and  such  non-extant  plays1  as  belong  in- 
disputably to  any  one  of  the  groups.  I  cannot  analyze  any  of 

1Non-extant  plays  will  be  marked  n.  e. 

97 


these  plays  carefully,  but  a  hasty  grouping  will  be  sufficient 
to  indicate  the  important  facts  in  this  decade  of  the  drama,  and 
will  show  the  relation  of  Shakspere's  and  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  romances  to  the  rest  of  the  drama. 

Some  of  the  plays  which  were  exceedingly  popular  had  no 
direct  connection  with  the  work  of  either  Shakspere  or  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher.  The  latter  wrote  most  of  their  romances 
for  Shakspere's  company,  and  they  have  only  satire  for  the 
rude  plays  which  entertained  the  audiences  of  the  Cur- 
tain or  Red  Bull.  A  large  number  of  plays  preserved  by 
name  in  Henslow's  Diary  (1601-1603)  and  some  still  later 
belong,  so  far  as  material  and  construction  go,  to  the  earlier 
days  of  Hieronimo  and  Stukely.  They  cannot,  however,  be 
neglected  in  a  summary  of  the  drama's  history. 

A  number  of  these  can  be  classed  as  '  plays  of  adventures.' 
They  were  generally  dramatic  renderings  of  stories  of  travels 
and  consisted  of  rudely  connected  representations  of  improbable 
and  stirring  adventures.  In  method  they  were  similar  to  the 
chronicle -histories  of  ten  years  before.  Their  popularity  and 
general  style  can  be  judged  by  this  list. 

The  Bold  Beauchamps.     n.  e. 

A  Christian  turned  Turk;  or  the  tragicall  lives  and  deaths 
of  the  two  famous  pirates,  Ward  and  Dansiker. 

The  Conquest  of  the  West  Indies,     n.  e. 

Fortune  by  Land  and  Sea.  (Plot  partly  from  the  accounts 
of  the  pirates,  Clinton  and  Tom  Watson. ) 

The  Four  Prentices  of  London  with  the  Conquest  of  Jerusa- 
lem. 

History  of  Richard  Whittington.     n.  e. 

Siege  of  Dunkirk;  with  Alleyn  the  pirate,     n.  e. 

Travels  of  Three  English  Brothers. 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher  wrote  no  plays  of  this  class,  but 
Pericles  offers  some  notable  resemblances  to  this  type. 1 

Chronicle-history  plays,  dealing  generally  with  events  of 
English  history,  form  another  large  class.  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  together  never  dealt  with  a  topic  from  English  history, 
and  Shakspere's  Macbeth  and  Lear,  while  exhibiting  many  of 
the  characteristics  of  the  class,  must  be  grouped  with  tragedies 
rather  than  histories.  Henry  VIII,  however,  belongs  with 
this  group.  Most  of  these  plays  were  as  rudely  constructed  as 
in  the  days  of  Henry  VI. 

Cardinal  Wolsey'  s  Life.    n.  e. 

Conquest  of  Spain  by  John  of  Gaunt,     n.  e. 

Earl  of  Harford.     n.  e. 

Honourable  Life  of  the  Humourous  Earl  of  Gloster,  and  his 
conquest  of  Portugal,  n.  e. 

1  See  Appendix. 

98 


If  you  know  not  me,  you  know  nobody,  or  the  troubles  of 
Queen  Elizabeth.  2  parts. 

Life  and  Death  of  Lord  Cromwell. 

Malcolm,  King  of  Scots,     n.  e. 

Mortimer,     n.  e. 

Nobody  and  Somebody,  with  the  true  chronicle-history  of 
Elidure.  A  revision  (?). 

Philip  of  Spain,     n.  e. 

Richard  Crookback.     alterations,     n.  e. 

Rising  of  Cardinal  Wolsey.     n.  e. 

Sir  Thomas  Wyatt,  Famous  History  of.     2  parts. 

When  you  See  Me,  etc.     (Henry  VIII. ) 

The  Whore  of  Babylon.     (Allegory  of  the  Armada,  etc.) 

We  may  also  note  here  several  other  plays  of  a  historical 
character. 

The  Devil's  Charter,  life  and  death  of  Pope  Alexander  6. 

King  Sebastian  of  Portugal,     n.  e. 

The  Unfortunate  General,  a  French  History,     n.  e. 

Four  other  plays  may  be  classed  as  spectacular  entertain- 
ments, although  Dekker's^fzV  be  not  good — is  in  part  a  satirical 
comedy. 

England1  s  Joy. 

The  Golden  Age,  with  the  loves  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn. 

Necromantes.     n.  e. 

If  it  be  not  good,  the  devil  is  in  *t. 

We  come  now  to  the  tragedies  of  the  period.  In  the  years 
just  preceding  1601,  domestic  tragedies,  founded  on  actual 
contemporary  murders,  were  very  popular.  Plays  of  this  type 
were  also  presented  after  1600,  and  one  of  them,  the  Yorkshire 
Tragedy,  has  on  considerable  external  evidence  sometimes  been 
assigned  to  Shakspere. 

The  Bristol  Tragedy,     n.  e. 

The  Chester  Tragedy.  (Randal,  Karl  of  Chester.)  n.  e. 

The  Miseries  of  Enforced  Marriage. 

The  Yorkshire  Tragedy. 

Under  the  head  of  '  tragedies  of  blood,'  a  large  number  of 
Elizabethan  plays  may  be  included.  One  of  the  most  important 
species  of  this  genus  is  the  tragedy  of  revenge,  generally  based 
on  the  revenge  of  a  father  for  a  son,  like  the  Spanish  Tragedy, 
or  the  revenge  of  a  son  for  a  father,  like  the  original  Hamlet. 
Marston's  two  plays,  Antonio  and  Mellida  and  Antonio' s  Re- 
venge, in  1599,  contributed  to  this  species  ;  and  Shakspere's 
Hamlet  may  have  been  produced  in  response  to  the  stage  de- 
mand for  plays  of  this  sort  which  was  apparently  strong  in 
1600-3.  The  familiar  story  of  a  son's  revenge  on  his  father's 
murderer  certainly  stirred  the  imaginations  of  lesser  men  as 


99 


well  as  Shakspere.     Plays  based  on  this  plot,  all  probably  be- 
fore 1604,  are : 

Jonson's  Additions  to  the  Spanish  Tragedy. 

The  Atheist* s  Tragedy. 

Hamlet. 

Hoffman. 

Other  tragedies  of  blood,  in  which  the  motive  of  revenge 
plays  a  leading  part  are  : 

Bussy  D'  Ambois.     2  parts. 

Byron.     2  parts. 

The  Duchess  of  Malfi. 

The  Revenger's  Tragedy. 

The  White  Devil. 

These  plays  contain  much  intrigue,  many  physical  horrors, 
and  many  deaths;  and  deal  with  revenge,  ghosts,  insanity,  and 
utter  villainy.  The  tragedy  of  blood,  then,  received  develop- 
ment from  Tourneur,  Chapman,  Webster,  and  Shakspere.  It 
was  a  very  important  and  a  fairly  distinct  type  throughout 
this  period,  but  it  exercised  very  little  influence  on  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher.  Their  romances  do  not  exhibit  ghosts,  church- 
yard scenes,  many  assassinations;  nor  do  they  elaborate  stories 
of  revenge.1  They  do  not  lack  in  murder  and  intrigue,  but 
Thierry  and  Theodoret  is  the  only  one  which  could  be  placed 
in  the  most  liberal  classification  of  tragedies  of  blood.  There 
are  practically  no  signs  of  that  type  in  Philaster^  the  Maid' s 
Tragedy,  and  A  King  and  No  King. 

Tragedies  with  subjects  from  classical  history  form  another 
class  of  plays  popular  in  this  decade  and  include  among  their 
authors  Marston,  Jonson,  and  Shakspere.  Fletcher  later  wrote 
Valentinian,  but  while  working  with  Beaumont  made  no  con- 
tribution to  this  class. 

Antony  and  Cleopatra.  Philotas. 

Appius  and  Virginia.  Nero.'3' 

Ccesar*  s  Fall.     n.  e.  Rape  of  Lucrece. 

Catiline.  Sejanus. 

Coriolanus.  Sophonisba. 

Hannibal  and  Scipio.    n.  e.          Timon  of  Athens. 
Julius  C&sar. 

These  classes  nearly  exhaust  the  tragedies  of  the  period. 
The  extant  plays  which  remain  unclassified  are: 

Cynthia* s  Revenge ',  or  Menander* s  Ecstasy. 

The  Insatiate  Countess. 

Lear. 

Macbeth. 

Othello. 

1  See,  however,.  Four  Plays  in  One,  p.  85,  ante. 

2  Possibly  not  acted. 

IOO 


The  Second  Ma  iden '  s   Tragedy . 

The  Turk,  with  the  Death  of  Borgias,  etc. 

Two  of  these,  the  Insatiate  Countess  and  Second  Maiden's 
Tragedy,  were  not  acted  till  1611  or  later.  Others  might  have 
been  classed  in  other  groups.  Lear,  for  example,  might  have 
been  placed  either  with  the  chronicle-histories  or  the  tragedies 
of  blood.  Two  other  tragedies,  probably  to  be  dated  later  than 
1611,  were,  according  to  Mr.  Fleay,  acted  in  some  form  in  this 
period:  the  Noble  Spanish  Soldier  and  the  Virgin  Martyr. 
Finally,  three  non-extant  plays  on  biblical  themes  should  be 
grouped  together. 

Jephtha.     n.  e. 

Joshua,     n.  e. 

Samson,     n.  e. 

None  of  these  plays  can  be  suspected  of  influencing  to  any 
extent  the  romances  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

In  all  the  tragedies  we  find  no  prototypes  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  romantic  tragedies,  but  on  the  contrary  the  pre- 
vailing types,  tragedies  on  classical  themes  and  tragedies  of 
blood,  are  differentiated  in  kind  from  such  plays  as  the  Maid's 
Tragedy,  A  King  and  No  King,  and  Philaster.  They  also  differ 
in  kind  from  Shakspere's  romances.  They  do  not  even  offer 
any  hint  of  such  combinations  of  tragic  and  idyllic  elements 
as  we  find  in  both  sets  of  romances.  One  characteristic  which 
distinguishes  most  of  these  tragedies  will  further  illustrate 
their  wide  divergence  from  the  romances.  Since  the  time  of 
Marlowe's  Tamberlaine,  English  tragedies  had  generally  pre- 
sented the  life  and  death  or  the  revenge  of  some  central  figure 
who  dominated  the  stage  during  most  of  the  five  acts  and  who 
gave  his  name  to  the  play.  This  character  usually  had  a  part 
suited  to  violent  action  and  stirring  declamation;  about  him 
centered  the  entire  interest  of  the  play.  This  general  form 
prevailed  through  the  period  1601—1611  as  the  mere  names  of 
Shakspere's  tragedies  will  testify — King  Lear,  Macbeth,  Othello, 
Coriolanus — or  the  names  of  most  of  the  tragedies  of  varying 
types—  Bussy  D'Ambois,  Byron,  Sejanus,  Catiline,  Hoffman, 
Samson.  Even  this  general  characteristic  will  not  be  found  to 
distinguish  the  romances  of  either  Shakspere  or  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher.  Even  without  a  careful  analysis  of  the  leading  traits 
of  the  romances,  we  giajv  safely  call  them  innovations  in  the 
fiejd_of  tragedy.  They  did  not  change  or  develop  the  old 
types.  "Those  continued  to  exist  as  recognized  dramatic  forms 
for  many  years.  Fletcher  himself  wrote  tragedies  dealing  with 
English  and  classical  history  as  late  as  1616,  and  long  after- 
wards Shirley's  Cardinal  reproduced  most  of  the  features  of 
the  revenge  species  of  the  tragedy  of  blood.  So  far  as  trage- 
dy was  concerned,  the  romances  were  simply  an  unexpected 
departure. 

101 


We  come  now  to  comedy,  in  which  the  most  important  in- 
fluence during  this  decade  seems  to  have  beenjonsoj^s.  In 
the  well-known  prologue  to  Every  Man  in  His  Humour  (1598), 
he  made  open  war  on  the  chronicle-History  plays  ami  declared 
his  intention  to  present  one  play  such  as  other  plays  should  be, 
with 

"deeds  and  language,  such  as  men  do  use, 
And  persons  such  as  comedy  would  choose, 
When  she  would  show  an  image  of  the  times 
And  sport  with  human  follies,  not  with  crimes." 

In  this  play  he  initiated  the  comedy  of  humours  which  he 
established  in  a  series  of  remarkable  plays  and  defended  and 
explained  in  various  prologues  and  addresses.  Most  of  the 
comedies  written  in  the  first  decade  of  the  new  century  seem 
to  have  profited  by  his  precept  and  example.  Their  predomi- 
nant trait  i^realism. 

^    It  is  difHcuTTTo  classify  them.     Many  are  mainly  satirical 
in  purpose.     Some  of  these,  like  the  Poetaster,  contain  personal 
satire  and  are  connected  with  the   ' '  war  of  the  theaters' '  ex- 
isting atthe  beginning  of.  onr  period ;  others  indulge  in  a  more 
generansatire  of  London   manners  and  morals.     Some,   like 
Jonson's  plays,  are  devoted  to  the  elaboration   of  humours; 
others  might  be  classed  as  comedies  of  intrigue,  carrying  on 
the  plots  inherited  from  Plautus  and  Terence,  but  containing 
a  good  deal  of  humoristic  caricature.     Others  deal  less  satiri- 
cally and  more  sympathetically  with  domestic  scenes  and  mo- 
tives.    Some  few  are  sentimental  comedies.     In  any  arrange- 
\  ment  the  classes  will  not  be  wholly  exclusive,  but  they  will 
1  show  that  the  comedies  of  the  period  were  njoj^romantic   in 
^character  but  were  satinnil,  ^fl^sfo,  flfd  Hnmpsti'r. 

After  Jonson,  Middleton  is  the  most  importalrt  contributor 
to  the  comedy  of  this  period,  and  his  career  illustrates  the 
prevalence  of  realistic  comedies-erf  manners.  About  1600  he 
was  writing  cofnedies  more  or  less  romantic,  with  scenes  in 
foreign  places  and  involving  a  mixture  of  tragic  and  comic 
events.  Of  this  class  are  the  Old  Law  (1599-1600)  and  Blurt, 
Master  Constable  (1600— 1601);  but  even  these  plays  abound 
in  satirical  pictures  of  London  manners.  From  the  beginning 
of  our  period  to  its  close  his  comedies  are  invariably  social 
satires;  the  Phoenix,  the  only  one  with  a  romantic  plot,  being 
especially  satirical.  The  others  are  all  comedies  of  manners 
with  realistic  plots  of  intrigue  and  with  the  scenes  in  London 
or  vicinity.  A  Mad  World,  My  Masters,  the  Phoenix,  Five 
Witty  Gallants,  the  Family  of  Love,  A  Trick  to  Catch  the  Old 
One,  and  Michczlmas  Term  were  all  published  by  1 608  and  were 
acted  during  the  five  preceding  years  by  the  Pauls  or  Revels 
boys.  Nor  did  Middleton' s  comedies  of  manners  cease  then. 
Two  others,  A  Chaste  Maid  of  Cheapside,  and  No  Wit,  no 

102 


Help  like  a  Woman'  s  may  be  dated  somewhere  in  the  ensuing 
five  years.  A  Match  at  Midnight  and  the  Puritan,  also  come- 
dies of  manners  with  scenes  in  London,  were  probably  written 
by  Middleton  during  the  years  1601-1611  j1  and  The  Roaring 
Girl,  which  he  wrote  in  collaboration  with  Dekker,  is  a  realistic 
comedy  of  London  life  but  treats  its  theme  more  sympatheti- 
cally than  any  other  of  Middleton  's.  His  great  contributions 
to  the  romantic  drama  come.  much_later.  During  TfKeryears 
1601-1611  he  was  solely  occupied  with  realistic  comedies  of 
L/ondon  life  largely  satirical  in  purpose. 

There  are  a  dozen  other  comedies  of  the  period  which  can 
be  described,  like  Jonson's  and  Middleton's,  as  realistic  come- 
dies, largely  satirical  in  purpose.  Chapman's  comedies,  like 
Volpone,  treat  of  English  manners  under  foreign  names,  but 
most  of  the  others  have  thgir  sr^nes  jn__Tfo]  gland..  Some  are 


__ 

mere  comedies  of  intrigue  without  much  satirical  purpose,  but 
none  are  sympathetic  in  their  description  ot  l^nglisn  life  and 
none  have  any  points  oi  similarity  with  romantic  comedies  Tike 
Much  Ado  and  Twelfth  Night.  Some  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher'  s 
early  comedies  which  might  be  included  in  this  list  will  be 
spoken  of  later;  it  includes  all  other  satirical  and  realistic 
comedies  of  the  decade. 

The  Alchemist.  No  Wit,  no  Help  like  a 

All  Fools.  Woman'  s. 

A  Chaste  Maid  of  Cheapside?     The  Phoenix. 
Cupid'  s    Whirligig.  The  Poetaster. 

The  Demi's  Law  Case.  The  Puritan. 

The  Dutch  Courtesan.  Ram  Alley. 

Epicozne.  Satiromasiix  . 

Every  Woman  in  Her  Humour.  Sir  Giles  Goosecap. 
7^he  Family  of  Love.  Tale  of  a  Tub. 

The  Fawn.  A  Trick  to  Catch  the  Old  One. 

Five  Witty  Gallants.  Volpone. 

The  Fleire*  Westward,  Ho! 

Greene's  Tu  Quoque.  What  You  Will. 

A  Mad  World,  My  Masters.        The  Widow's  Tears. 
A  Match  at  Midnight.'2'  The  Wise  Woman  of 

May  Day.  Hodgsdon. 

Northward,  Ho! 

In  some  other  .domestic  and  realistic  comedies  of  the  time, 
the  purpose  is  not  at  all  satirical  but  rather  a  sympathetic 
portrayal  of  various  phases  of  English  life.  The  best  of  these 

1See  Fleay  Or.  and  Bullen's  edition  of  Middleton;  introduction, 
Ixxix. 

'2  Possibly  later  than  1601. 

3  The  classification  of  this  curious  play  is  especially  difficult.  It  is 
a  sort  of  tragi-comedy,  but  the  scene  is  London  and  the  purpose,  so 
far  as  there  is  any,  seems  to  be  largely  satirical. 

103 


is  He}7  wood's  sentimental  comedy,  A  Woman  Killed  with  Kind- 
ness. Most  of  the  others  are  less  masterly  in  treatment  and 
are  devoted  to  the  exploitation  of  some  trade  or  of  some  es- 
pecial feature  of  London  life.  Some,  like  Dekker's  Honest 
Whore,  are  in  a  considerable  part  satirical  and  contain  carica- 
tures like  "  the  humours  of  the  patient  man,"  which  form  the 
jSub-plot  of  that  play.  All  are  realistic  in  contents  and  treat- 
|ment,  and  their  domestic~^Karacter^separafes^  them  entirely 
clrama. 

Eastward,  Ho! 

The  Fair  Maid  of  Bristow. 

The  Fair  Maid  of  the  Exchange. 

The  Honest  Whore.     2  parts. 

How  to  Choose  a  Good  Wife  from  a  Bad. 

The  London  Prodigal. 

The  Merry  Devil  of  Edmonton.    (Perhaps  earlier  than  1601.) 

The  Roaring  Girl. 

A  Shoemaker  is  a  Gentleman. 

Six  Clothiers.     2  parts,     n.  e. 

Six  Yoemen  of  the  West.     n.  e. 

A  Woman  is  a  Weathercock. 

A  Woman  Killed  with  Kindness. 

The  comedies  of  the  period  might  be  classified  in  other  ways. 
In  the  early  years  of  the  century  there  was  a  series  of  plays 
dealing  with  conflicts  between  wives  and  husbands — A  Woman 
Killed  with  Kindness,  the  Honest  Whore,  with  the  humours  of 
the  patient  man ,  Patient  Grissel  (1599),  Medicine  for  a  Cursed 
Wife  (n.  e. ),  Shakspere's  Taming  of  the  Shrew  (revised  after 
1600),  and  Fletcher's  Woman's  Prise.  Another  group  might 
be  made  of  plays  which  are  concerned  chiefly  with  satire  of 
citizens'  wives;  another  group  from  plays  presenting  scenes 
in  houses  of  ill  fame.  There  are  also  some  plays  which  must 
be  classed  as  romantic  and  not  as  realistic  comedies.  Before 
passing  to  these  we  must  note  that  all  the  comedies  so  far 
mentioned  are  absolutely  distinguished  in  kind  from  the  ro- 
mances. 

The  prevalence  of  realistic  comedy,  however,  had  its  effect 
on  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  also  on  Shakspere.  7^roilus 
and  Cressida,  while  dealing  with  a  classical  theme  like  the 
tragedies,  certainly  shows  signs  of  the  satirical  impulses  which 
dominated  the  poets  of  the  time.  Measure  for  Measure,  while 
it  must  be  classed  with  the  tragi-comedies  of  the  period,  deals 
in  its  comic  scenes  with  the  same  phases  of  life  as  many  of 
Middleton's  comedies.  According  to  our  chronology  the  first 
three  plays  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  belong  to  the  class  of 
comedy  of  manners — the  Woman's  Prize,  Wit  at  Several 
Weapons,  the  Woman  Hater — and  the  last  is  decidedly  in  Jon- 
son's  manner.  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  though  of  an 

104 


original  species,  is  certainly  in  the  satirical  genus.  Three 
other  of  their  comedies  of  this  period  have  their  scenes  in 
London  —  Monsieur  Thomas,  the  Scornful  Lady,  and  the  Cox- 
comb.^ The  first  two  are  farces  dealing  with  mannerspErletast 
contains"  a  sentimental  love-story  similar  to  those  in  the  ro- 
mances and  may  be  considered  with  Love''  s  Cure  and  the  Cap- 
tamas  examples  of  romantic  comedy. 

It  Is"  among  the  romantic  rather"  than  the  realistic  comedies 
that  we  should  naturally  look  for  any  influences  leading  to  the 
romances,  but  there  are  almost  no  romantic  comedies  in  this 
period.  Three  of  these  by_John  Day  form  a  class  by  them- 
selves —  Isle  of  Gulls  ',  Humour  out  of  Breath,  Law  Tricks.  They 
abouh^lJn^jaiireTsbme  of  which  seems  to  have  been  personal, 
but  each  has_a  romantic  plot  with  many  fantastic  elemeUts. 
Some  of  the  incidents,  the  wit-combats,  and~~Eh"e  balancing  of 
lovers  and  ladies  remind  jis_  of  I/yly's  comedies^  They~are 
artificial,  Arcadian  fancies,  distinguished  by  much  lively  hu- 
mor and  quite  unlike  any  other  plays  of  the  time.  They  are 
also  very  different  from  the  romances.  Middleton's  Phcenix. 
and  some  of  Chapman's  realistic  comedies  have  already  been 
mentioned  as  containing  some  roifrani.it  elements;  in  two  others 
by  Chapman,  these  elements  are  sufficient  to  warrant  the  term 
romantic  comedy.  Monsieur_J)'  Olive  is  a  sort  _pf  romantic 
comedy  of  humours  of  no  interest  in  connection  with  the  ro- 
mande^TTSut  the  Gentleman  Usher  is  one  of  the  few  plays  of  the 
perlocTwith  sufficient  mixture  01  tragic  and  comic  events  to  be 
~  j.i  agi-comed 


The  mostnoticeable  hing  about  the  tragi-comedies  of  this 
period  is  their  scarcity.  There  are  few  to  be  placed  with 
PhjJasteiL,  A  &inj2^and_No  Kinp.  Cymbeline,  a  Winter's  Tale, 
and  the  Tempest.  Many  of  the  plays,  to  be  sure,  contained 
some  mixture  of  tragic  and  comic  scenes,  and  the  histories 
and  plays  of  adventure  combined  a  great  variety  of  incidents, 
but  the  tragedies  were  mostly  very  tragic  and  the  comedies 
satirical  or  farcical  in  tone.  Some  of  the  domestic  comedies, 
notably  A  Woman  Killed  with  Kindness,  appealed  chiefly  to 
the  emotion  of  pity,  and  some  of  the  satirical  comedies  had 
touches  of  tragic  sentiment;  but  these  are  hardly  more  than 
the  exceptions  which  prove  the  rule.  There  are  very  few  plays 
which  combine  tragic  and  sentimental  stories  and  lead  them  to 
a  happy  ending  after  the  fashion  of  Shakspere's  earlier  come- 
dies or  of  a  chronicle  history  likGjames  IV.  There  are  almost 
no  romantic  tragi-comedies.  In  fact,  including  Measure  for 
Measure  there  are  only  five  which  offer  the  slightest  generic 
resemblance  to  the  heroic  tragi-comedies  like  Philaster  _and  the 
Wintgr^Tale  .  One  of  these,  ^^T/jjw-  Man's  Comfort,  was 
probably  not  acted  until  jifter  1611,  certainly  not  early  enough 
to  have  influenced  Beaumont  ancl  Fletcher  ;'Tn"e"6TEeTs~afe"lhe 

9  105 


Gentleman  Usher,  the  Dumb  Knight,  and  the  Malcontent.  The 
Gentleman  Usher  contains  a  mixture  of  humouristic  pictures 
of  manners,  of  a  sentimental  love  story,  and  of  the  tragic  ac- 
companiments of  the  loves  of  the  old  duke  and  his  son  for  the 
heroine.  The  ending  is  happy.  The  Dumb  Knight  has  a  by- 
plot  of  intrigue  with  the  usual  satire  on  lawyers  and  the  morals 
of  city  wives,  but  the  main-plot  is  hejojc-and—romantic.  The 
long  declamations,  the  two  trials  by  combat,  and  the  general 
method  of  construction  differentiate  it  distinctly  from  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher's  work.  The  Malcontent  resembles  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher's  romances  in  one  particular;  it  deals  with 
events  wholly  tragical  and  leading  to  a  tragical  conclusion 
which  is  unexpectedly  changed  to  a  happy  ending.  The  ma- 
terial, however,  is  that  of  a  tragedy  of  blood  after  the  style  of 
Antonio  and  Mellida  and  quite  unlike  Shakspere's  or  Beau- 
mont's combination  of  tragic  and  idyllic  incidents.  Measure 
for  Measure  hardly  needs  comment;  no  one  would  think  of 
finding  close  resemblances  between  it  and  any  one  of  the 
romances. 

We  are  not  to  discuss  here  the  characteristics  of  the  ro- 
mances, and  we  need  not  pause  to  distinguish  them  further 
from  these  tragi-comedies.  The  few  examples  of  this  class 
show  that  there  was  almost  no  experimenting  with  romantic 
material.  Even  the  sentimental  love  story  so  prominent  in  the 
romances  of  both  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  Shakspere  fell 
into  disuse.  Of  course  there  were  love  stories,  but  there  were 
not  many  sentimental  heroines  who  suffered  everything  for 
their  lovers  in  the  drama  from  1601  to  1608.  Even  girls  in 
boys'  clothing  were  rare,  though  they  were  plentiful  enough 
before  1601  and  equally  common  in  plays  by  Fletcher  and  others 
after  1611.  When  a  woman  does  appear  in  boys'  clothes,  as 
in  the  Honest  Whore,  the  Dumb  Knight,  May  Day,  and  Ram 
Alley,  she  bears  far  less  resemblance  to  the  heroines  of  the 
romances  than  do  the  earlier  heroines  of  Shakspere,  or  Greene 
or  even  Lyly.  Shakspere  was  not  alone  in  abandoning  the 
love-lorn  maiden  and  the  romantic  incidents  attaching  to  her 
situation.  During  the  years  following  1600,  most  of  the  drama- 
tists were  engaged  on  material  where  the  boy  and  girl  love 
story  had  no  opportunity  for  prominence.  In  fact,  to  find  any 
close  resemblance  to  the  material  of  the  romances,  we  must 
go  to  plays  acted  before  1601.  The  method  of  Greene' s  James 

!IV\s  twenty  years  behind  that  of  the  romances,  but  its  stories 
of  violent  passion  and  sentimental  love  offer  more  resemblance 
to  the  material  of  the  plots  of  Philaster  and  Cymbeline  than 
anything  by  contemporary  dramatists  in  the  years  1601—1611. 
r*  The  list  of  all  the  plays  in  this  period  which  can  be  classi- 
ffied  as  romantic  comedies  or  tragi-comedies  will  again  em- 
jphasize  their  scarcity. 

1 06 


5   - 

|4t 


Alls  Well  that  Ends  Well.     (Probably  before  1601.) 
Captain.    — 
Coxcomb.  — 
The  Dumb  Knight. 
The  Gentleman  Usher. 
umour  out  of 
Tie  Isle  of  Gulls, 
Law  Tricks. 


(Probably  after  1611.) 


j— 


A  Poor  Man' s  Lomfort. 

The  Malcontent. 
-^-Measure  for  Measure. j 
Tonsieur  D'  Olive. 

Of  these  thirteen  pl^^^twb  belong  outside  the  period  or  on 
its  extreme  limits,  three  are  a  peculiar  sort  of  comedy  by  Day, 
four  more  are  by  Shakspere  or  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  One 
of  these,  the  Cmcrmnh^  is,  properly  fl  domestic  comedy  jjbut  is 
included  here  because  its  sentimental_stpry  is  closer  to  the 
romance^_yian_aiiy-other-plays  on  the  list.  Four  plays  remain. 
They  certainly  demonstrate  the  barrenness  of  the  period  in  any 
plays  which  would  stimulate  or  suggest  any  return  to  the  ro- 
mantic comedies  of  the  previous  century  or  a  development  of  a 
typg  r>f  frf;rr>jr^j-rQjW|igg  and  tragi-comedies. 


Ourexamination  of  the  plays  of  the  central  period  of  the 
Elizabethan  drama  reveals  several  facts  of  importance  for  our 
main  investigation.     We  have  found  that  the  important  con-""A 
tributions  to  the,  drarna  were  either  satirical  and  realistic  come- 
dies  orthorough-going  tragedies  of  fairly  cjejinitg_cla.gses.~   In 
t he"^evelopm en t  of  realistic  comedy,  Dekker,  HeywoocT,  Mid- 
dleton,  and  Jonson  contributed.     Chapman,  Tourneur,  Web- 
ster, and  Jonson,  as  well  as  Shakspere  were    writing  trage- 
dies.    There  was  very  little  romantic  comedy,  or  tragi-comedy,   . 
and  almost  no  plays  which  could  be  classed  as  heroic  romances.   ] 
There  are  only  two  or  three  unimportant  plays  which  have  even 
a  few  of  the  most  noticeable  characteristics  of  the  romances — 
a  mixture  of  tragic  and  idyllic  events,  a  series  of  highly  im-   , 
probable  events,   heroic   and   sentimental  characters,   foreign 
scenes,  happy  denouements.     We  are  justified  in  concluding 
that  when  in  1609  Shakspere  turned  from  tragedy  to  romance  ; 
he  not  only  departed  from  his  practice  of  the  past  eight  years,  \ 
but  also  from  the  practice  of  his  contemporaries  during  that  1 

1  Pericles,  which  might  be  included  in  this  list,  seems  to  me  to  belong 
rather  with  the  plays  of  adventure.  With  this  list  we  have  classified 
all  the  extant  plays  of  the  period  with  the  exception  of  a  few  closet 
dramas  which  were  not  acted ;  Daniel's  Queen's  Arcadia  and  Fletcher's 
Faithful  Shepherdess,  pastoral  plays  on  the  Italian  model ;  and  Two 
Maids  of  Mortclake,  apparently  a  history,  which  I  have  not  been  able 
to  examine. 


107 


period.1  So  far  as  we  can  determine,  without  anticipating  our 
analysis  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  romances,  we  may  con- 
clude that  they  also  marked  a  distinct  departure  from  contem- 
porary practice. 

The  plays  of  other  dramatists  than  Shakspere  and  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  indicate  no  promise  of  such  a  departure.  With 
all  the  romantic  plays  of  the  preceding  decade  to  draw  upon, 
the  dramatists  in  this  period  turned  to  farces,  satires,  and 
tragedies.  Their  work  shows  no  influences  working  for  a  re- 
vival of  romanticism;  in  the  plays  of  the  masters  there  is 
nothing  to  indicate  that  they  would  not  continue  to  write  his- 
torical tragedies  and  London  comedies  of  manners  for  another 
decade.  It  seems  clear  that  neither  set  of  romances  can  be 
considered  the  direct  result  of  dramatic  forces  or  fashions  ex- 

|  isting  1601-1611.     So  far  as  they  constitute  a  development  of 
a  new  type  of  drama,  that  development  seems  to  have  been  the 

-  work  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  or  Shakspere. 

We  can  now  examine  the  two  sets  of  romances  themselves 
and  determine  their  characteristics  and  consider  the  questions 
how  far  either  constitutes  a  distinct  type  and  what  resemblances 
exist  between  them.  If  we  find  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
do  form  a  definite  type  similar  to  Shakspere' s,  we  shall  be  free 
to  face  the  further  questions — did  Shakspere  influence  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher  or  did  they  influence  Shakspere?  While 
we  must  keep  in  mind  the  influence  of  other  types,  of  current 
fashions,  of  contemporary  methods  in  which  none  of  our  authors 
may  have  been  inventors,  still  we  may  feel  confident  that  the 
appearance  of  the  nine  romances  in  the  years  1607-1611  was 
due  primarily  to  the  innovation  of  either  Shakspere  or  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher. 

1  An  equally  important  conclusion  may  be  drawn  concerning  his 
change  from  romantic  comedies  and  chronicle-histories  to  tragedies, 
at  about  1601.  Here,  also,  he  seems  to  have  been  following  the  general 
dramatic  movement.  Our  investigation  also  suggests  that  his  choice 
of  themes  from  1601  to  1608,  and  in  some  measure  his  treatment  of 
them,  were  conditioned  by  the  practice  of  the  dramatists  of  the  period — 
possibly  quite  as  much  as  by  his  own  personal  experiences.  In  the  light  of 
contemporary  plays,  e.g.,  the  difference  between  Measure  for  Measure 
and  Twelfth  Night  certainly  seems  less  significant  of  Shakspere's 
emotional  experiences  than  has  often  been  assumed.  The  fact  that 
while  his  contemporaries  were  busy  with  satirical  comedies  he  kept 
his  plays  so  free  from  satire,  perhaps  affords  a  safer  hint  at  Shakspere's 
personality  and  artistic  emotions. 


1 08 


CHAPTER  VII. 

GENERAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  ROMANCES  OF  BEAU- 
MONT AND  FLETCHER. 

Six  plays  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher — Philaster,  Four  Plays 
in  One,  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  The  Maid' s  Tragedy,  Cupid's 
Revenge,  and  A  King  and  No  King 3  possess  such  marked  re- 
semblances that  they  may  fairly  be  said  to  constitute  a  distinct 
type  of  drama.  This  '  romance '  type  is  exemplified  to  a  less 
degree  in  other  of  their  plays;  but  these  best  illustrate  its 
characteristics,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  were  all  probably  acted 
before  the  clos**  Q£-  T  fi  T-F—  We  shall  examine  them  in  order  to 
discover  their  common  characteristics  and  to  note  how  these 
characteristics  distinguish  them  from  preceding  Elizabethan 
plays.  We  shall  consider  in  order  their  plots,  characters,  style, 
and  stage  effect. 

One  interesting  field  of  investigation  we  shall  hardly  touch 
upon — their  indebtedness  in  particular  scenes  or  details  to  pre- 
ceding plays  and  especially  to  Shakspere's.  I  shall  try  to  show 
that  in  their  main  features  they  were  novel  plays,  and  I  shall 
compare  them  at  every  point  with  Shakspere's  romances;  but 
it  is  manifestly  outside  of  the  purpose  of  this  investigation  to 
consider  all  the  debts  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  to  their  pred- 
ecessors. They  doubtless  owed  much,  particularly  to  Shakspere. 
The  scene  between  Melantius  and  Amintor  in  the  Maid' s  Tragedy 
(III,  2)  seems  imitated  from  passages  between  Brutus  and 
Cassius,  and  Philaster  has  some  obvious  likenesses  to  Hamlet. 
I  shall  note  such  resemblances,  however,  only  when  they  seem 
of  importance  in  relation  to  my  hypothesis  that  the  romances 
form  a  new  type  of  play.  We  must  grant  that  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  owed  much  to  their  predecessors,  but  we  are  particu- 
larly concerned  with  their  own  contributions  to  the  develop- 
ment of  a  type.  Their  indebtedness  to  Shakspere's  preceding 
plays  may  be  cheerfully  admitted  to  have  been  considerable^ 
but  the  purpose  of  this  investigation  is  to  discover  whether 
Shakspere  owed  anything  to  them. 

A.     Plots. 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  like  all  Elizabethans,  took  the 
material  of  their  plots  from  wherever  they  could  find  it.  They 

1  Beaumont  probably  had  the  larger  share  in  these  romances,  but  I 
shall  not  attempt  to  differentiate  the  work  of  the  two  partners. 

109 


did  not,  however,  go  to  English  or  classical  histories l  nor  did 
they  rely  on  Italian  novelle,  but,  perhaps  following  Jonson's 
example,  they  usually  exercised  great  ingenuity  in  inventing 
plots.  Thus,  their  most  notable  plays,  Philaster*  the  Maid^  s 
Tragedy,  and  A  King  and  No  King,  have  original  plots.  Even 
when,  as  in  Cupid'1  s  Revenge  and  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  they 
found  their  material  already  in  narrative  form,  they  developed 
the  action  very  freely  by  the  addition  of  a  number  of  incidents 
to  furnish  excitement  and  vicissitude.  Often  they  devised 
unique  and  fantastic  stories  as  in  Love' s  Cure,  where  the  main 
action  deals  with  a  girl  who  has  been  brought  up  in  the  wars 
as  a  boy  and  a  boy  who  has  been  brought  up  at  home  as  a  girl ; 
or  as  in  Monsieur  Thomas  where  the  hero  tries  to  convince  his 
father,  who  desires  him  to  be  a  rake,  that  he  is  a  prig,  and  to 
convince  his  sweetheart,  who  desires  him  to  be  a  prig,  that 
he  is  a  rake.  The  plots  of  the  romances  are  equally  ingenious 
and  improbable,  abounding  in  violent  and  unnatural  situations. 

Even  in  their  comedies  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  did  not  often 
base  their  plots  on  a  satire  of  existing  conditions,  nor  did  they 
attempt  to  treat  motives  which  should  find  readiest  illustration 
in  incidents  of  contemporary  life.  In  their  romances  there  is 
still  less  of  the  realism  which  prevailed  on  the  stage  from  1601 
to  1611.  These  have  no  relationship  to  comedies  of  intrigue 
or  satires  of  London  life  or  to  domestic  dramas  of  sentiment 
like  Hey  wood's  A  Woman  Killed  with  Kindness.  They  deal 
with  heroic  persons  and  heroic  actions,  with  kings  and  princes 
and  noble  soldiers,  with  queens  and  princesses,  with  conquests, 
and  usurpations  and  revolutions  and  passions  which  ruin  king- 
doms. But,  unlike  most  Elizabethan  plays  dealing  with  similar 
material,  they  are  not  historical;  nor  do  they  deal  with  the 
well-worn  motive  of  revenge.  For  tragic  stories  of  royal  per- 
sons, Beaumont  and  Fletcher  did  not  go,  like  so  many  of  their 
contemporaries,  to  classical  history;  they  went  to  the  land  of 
romance.  They  located  their  plays  in  any  place  far  enough 
away  to  permit  of  strange  happenings  :  in  Angiers,  Armenia, 
Austracia  (all  these  places  were  scenes  of  their  romances), 
Lycia,  Rhodes,  Messina,  Milan,  Lisbon,  and  Athens.  The 
actions  which  go  on  in  these  places  have  little  to  do  with  the 
real  life  of  any  historical  period,  they  belong  to  the  land  of 
romance — or  rather  to  a  stage  which  required  strangeness  and 
variety. 

The  plots  of  the  romances,  however,  have  a  certain  uniform- 
ity. A  story  of  pure,  sentimental  love  is  always  given  great 

1This  is  true  only  of  the  plays  in  which  Beaumont  had  a  share. 
Fletcher  used  ancient  and  English  history  and  Spanish  novels. 

2 In  this  play  they  make  use  of  the  familiar  story  of  a  son's  revenge 
for  his  father ;  but  this  is  slightly  developed,  and  the  main  plot,  so 
far  as  is  known,  is  their  invention. 

110 


prominence,  and  this  is  always  contrasted  with  a  story  of  gross, 
sensual  passion.  The  complications  arising  from  this  favorite 
contrast  of  love  and  lust  t  give  an  opportunity  for  all  kinds  of 
incidents  involving  jealousy,  treacher}T,  intrigue,  adultery  and 
murder.  Each  play  has  its  idyllic  scenes  in  which  the  pure 
and  love-lorn  maiden  plays  her  part,  and  each  play  abounds  in 
broils  and  attempted  seductions  and  assassinations.  While  all 
this  commotion  is  being  aroused  in  the  passions  of  individuals, 
thrones  are  tottering  and  revolutions  brewing.  The  two  main 
motives  of  sentimental  love  and  unbridled  sexual  passion  are, 
in  fact,  sometimes  drowned  out  by  the  succession  of  violent  * 
emotions  and  the  great  variety  of  incidents. 

Not  only  did  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  seek  after  wide  variety 
of  action,  they  sought  as  well  for  variety  of  emotional  effect; 
and  this  characteristic  separates  their  work  from  that  of  con- 
temporary Elizabethan  dramatists  even  more  decidedly  than 
does  the  range  of  their  circumstantial  invention.  To  be  sure, 
the  presentation  in  the  same  play  of  unrestrained  passion  and 
pretty  sentiment,  of  mental  agony  and  comic  buffoonery,  was 
common  enough  on  the  Elizabethan  stage,  but  they  indulge 
in  such  contrasts  to  a  greater  extent  than  preceding  writers. 
In  Marston's  Malcontent,  for  example,  one  of  the  few  tragi- 
comedies acted  between  1600  and  1608,  we  have  a  tragedy  of 
blood  turned  into  a  comedy.  All  the  accompaniments  of  his 
tragedies  appear  :  an  adulterous  woman,  villainous  men,  in- 
trigue, stabbing,  poisons,  a  masque  disclosing  the  villainy,  but 
the  disguised  duke  prevents  the  intrigues  of  the  villain  and  in 
his  triumph  forgives  or  refuses  to  punish  instead  of  taking  re- 
venge. The  emotions  excited  have  little  variety,  they  are  of 
the  kind  which  usually  accompany  a  tragedy  of  horrors.  In 
Thierry  and  Theodoret,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  working 
with  a  narrative  containing  material  similar  to  the  Malcontent, 
a  story  of  adultery,  poisoning,  blood,  and  horrors.  Into  this 
plot  they  introduced  the  story  of  the  saintly  Ordella,  which 
supplies  not  only  one  of  their  best  situations,  but  is  full  of 
sentiment  and  pathos.  In  this  way  they  always  present  a 
variety  of  highly  contrasted  emotions  ;  they  never  construct  a 
play  about  one  central  passion.  Thus,  except  in  the  Triumph 
of  Death  and  as  a  subsidiary  motive  in  Philaster,  they  avoided 
revenge  as  a  central  emotion,1  although  it  had  been  used  within 
a  decade  by  Marston,  Tourneur,  Chapman,  Webster,  and  Shak- 
spere.  They  did  not  write  any  tragedies  after  Marlowe's  style 
with  a  central,  predominant  passion.  None  of  their  romances 
can  be  said  to  be  a  tragedy  of  jealousy  like  Othello,  or  a  tragedy 
of  ingratitude  like  Z,m r,  or  of  ambition  like  Macbeth.  Though 
they  all  involve  contrasted  love-stories,  each  deals  with  the 

1  Cf.  the  number  of  passages  in  their  plays  burlesquing  Hamlet. 

Ill 


f       most  varied  emotional  results  of  these  stories  and  with  other 
\        emotions  almost  wholly  disconnected.     Thus  Philaster  exhibits 
./  V  ^ irresolution  of  the  Hamlet  type,  jealousy  at  least  as  poignant 
as  Leontes:  Megra's  reckless  effrontery,  and  Euphrasia's  idyllic 
self  abnegation,  as  well  as  the  love  of  Philaster  and  Arethusa  and 
the  contrasted  passion  of  Pharamond  and  Megra.     In  short, 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  did  not  trace  out  the  sequence  of  emo- 
tions which  would  follow  from  an  actual  situation,  they  sought 
to  contrast  as  many  varying  emotions  as  possible.     They  never 
strove  to  keep  on  one  emotional  key;  they  sought  for  an  emo- 
.^tional  medley. 

The  plots  of  their  romances,  then,  resemble  one  another  in 
their  two  main  motives  but  are  for  the  most  part  original.  In 
their  avoidance  of  domestic  or  historical  material,  in  their  pref- 
erence for  improbable  and  varied  incidents,  and  in  their 
preference  for  intense  and  varied  emotions,  their  choice  of 
material  differs  from  that  of  their  predecessors  and  is  radically 
romantic. 

In  their  construction  of  this  material  into  dramatic  form  there 
are  also  some  distinguishing  traits.  The  material  of  the  ro- 
mances is  enough  to  separate  them  as  a  class  from  the  plays 
acted  1601-1611,  and  the  construction  on  the  whole  is  likewise 
divergent  from  Elizabethan  practice.  They  did  not  observe 
the  Aristotelian  unity  of  action  any  more  closely  than  their 
predecessors,  but  they  did  discard  some  archaic  methods  and 
thus  secured  a  greater  coherency  of  action.  The  old  method 
of  the  chronicle  histories  was  by  no  means  dead  in  1600.  Not 
only  does  it  appear  in  many  of  the  crude  historical  plays  of  the 
time,  it  is  also  discernible  in  some  of  the  great  tragedies. 
Hamlet  was  described  in  the  quartos  as  ' '  a  tragical  history  ' ' 
and  Lear  as  ' '  a  true  chronicle  history ; ' '  and  all  of  Shakspere's 
great  tragedies  follow  in  their  construction  the  chronological 
outline  of  a  historical  narrative.  Shakspere,  to  be  sure,  changes 
the  order  of  events  in  Lear,  adds  new  situations  and  characters, 
and  arranges  a  new  denouement;  so  did  Marlowe  in  Tambur- 
laine,  and  all  the  Elizabethans  deal  very  freely  with  historical 
facts.  In  a  great  tragedy  like  Lear,  however,  in  spite  of  the 
advances  over  the  days  of  Henry  VI,  the  method  is  still  that  of 
linking  together  a  number  of  scenes  to  represent  a  period  of 
history  or  the  events  of  a  life.  It  retains  something  of  the 
epical  character  of  the  construction  of  Henry  VI  and  Tambur- 
laine ;  moreover,  camps,  heralds,  parleys,  and  battles  supply, 
as  in  the  early  chronicle  histories,  a  semblance  of  scenic  effect 
and  historical  atmosphere.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  in  their 
romances  utterly  disregarded  the  methods  of  the  chronicle  his- 
tories. In  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  for  example,  all  the  battles 
and  their  accessories,  with  which  the  historical  narrative  is 
filled,  are  omitted,  and  the  scenes  are  pretty  closely  confined 

112 


to  the  palaces  of  the  two  kings.  In  all  the  romances,  in  fact,\s 
there  is  not  a  single  battle,  no  army  ever  appears,  there  is  but 
one  camp  scene,1  and  the  action  is  mostly  confined  to  apart- 
ments of  the  palaces.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  had  no  thought 
of  following  in  the  least  historical  events,  no  intention  of  imi- 
tating history.  They  sought  to  present  a  series  of  situations, 
each  of  which  should  be  interesting  of  itself  and  should  con- 
trast with  its  neighbors,  and  all  of  which  should  combine 
sufficiently  to  lead  up  to  a  startling  theatrical  climax. 
There  is  nothing  epical  about  their  construction;  it  is  not  truly 
dramatic  like  that  of  Shakspere's  tragedies  where  the  action  is 
in  part  developed  from  character;  but  it  is  skillfully  suited  to  / 
theatrical  effectiveness. 

Such  a  method  involved  great  care  in  the  development  of 
separate  situations.  They  are  not  always  developed  with  truth 
to  life  or  consistency  in  characterization,  but  they  always  give 
an  opportunity  for  variety  and  intensity  of  action.  A  girl 
disguised  as  a  boy  is  stabbed  by  the  man  she  loves;  a  woman 
convicted  of  adultery  boldly  defies  her  accusers  and  slanders 
the  princess;  a  king  is  in  love  with  his  supposed  sister;  a  king 
is  persuaded  to  kill  the  first  woman  coming  from  a  temple  and 
encounters  the  queen,  who  is  unknown  to  him — these  are  ex- 
amples of  situations  which  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  found  suffi- 
ciently strong.  They  enveloped  their  princes  and  ladies  in  a 
series  of  bewildering  and  immensely  stirring  circumstances, 
and  they  developed  each  improbable  circumstance  into  an 
effective  theatrical  situation.  Each  situation  may  not  promote 
the  main  action;  I  am  far  from  asserting  for  them  absolute 
unity  of  action,  but  each  situation  has  enough  action  of  itself 
to  have  made  it  telling  on  the  Elizabethan  stage. 

Their  by-plots  are  not  very  closely  connected  with  the  main 
plots  and  they  frequently  indulge  in  passages  of  poetic  descrip- 
tion of  the  style  that  Mr.  Wendell  calls  operatic,  but  both 
these  lyrical  interludes  and  the  by-plots  usually  play  a  part  in 
heightening  the  main  action.  Moreover  there  are  practically 
no  scenes  in  their  plays  like  Act  II  scene  4  in  Macbeth  where 
the  old  man  and  Ross  and  Macduff  discourse  on  the  events  of 
the  preceding  act ;  nor  like  the  opening  of  Act  III  in  Lear  where 
Kent  explains  to  the  gentlemen  the  progress  of  the  story;  nor 
even  like  Act  V,  scene  2  in  Hamlet  where  Hamlet  narrates  to 
Horatio  the  experience  of  his  voyage.  A  comparison  of  Phi- 
las  ter  and  Much  Ado  will  further  illustrate  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  development  of  circumstances  into  acting  situations. 
In  each  play  an  innocent  lady  is  basely  slandered  by  a  con- 
scienceless villain.  In  Much  Ado  we  have  an  expository  scene 
(I,  3)  in  which  Don  John  confers  with  his  accomplices,  explains 

1 A  King  and  No  King.     I.  i. 


his  attitude  and  starts  out  in  his  villainy.  In  the  next  scene 
he  appears  again  and  begins  his  slandering  (II,  i,  160-180). 
The  next  scene  (II,  2,)  is  wholly  expository  and  explains  the 
villain's  scheme.  Finally  (III,  3),  Don  John  brings  his  accu- 
sation against  Hero  before  Claudio.  In  Philaster  there  are  no 
expository  scenes,  Megra  is  detected  in  her  crime  and  furiously 
overwhelms  the  king  with  her  accusation  against  his  daughter. 
(II,  4.)  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  rarely  make  use  of  a  scene 
merely  for  narrative  or  expository  purposes;  in  their  romances, 
when  once  started,  the  action  never  stops. 

It  cannot  be  asserted  that  in  this  respect  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  differ  absolutely  from  their  predecessors.  I  think  there 
is,  however,  a  difference  in  skill.  Considered  merely  as  oppor- 
tunities for  variety  and  intensity  of  stage  action,  the  situations 
in  the  romances  can  hardly  be  equalled.  There  is  also  a  dif- 
ference in  degree.  Like  Sardou  and  other  romanticists  of  this 
century,  and  to  a  greater  degree  than  other  dramatists  of  their 
own  time,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  sacrificed  atmosphere,  charac- 
terization, and  verisimilitude  in  their  eagerness  to  secure  the- 
atrical effectiveness. 

The  care  which  they  took  to  secure  an  effective  denouement 
is  another  important  element  in  their  method  and,  like  their 
care  in  the  development  of  acting  situations,  must  have  con- 
tributed to  the  popularity  of  their  plays.  The  denouement 
is  never  simple;  it  never  turns  out  in  just  the  way  one  would 
expect;  it  never  has  the  inevitableness  of  great  tragedy. 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  never,  as  in  Measure  for  Measure,  a  long 
explanation  of  entanglements  which  the  audience  already 
understands.  It  usually  does  exhibit  the  lively  variation  of 
incidents,  the  succession  of  sharp  surprises  that  we  expect  in 
effective  melodrama. 

Take,  for  example,  the  denouement  of  the  Maid '  s  Tragedy. 
The  climax  of  the  action  is  reached  in  the  scene  where  the  king 
is  murdered  by  Evadne,  his  mistress,  whom  he  had  married  to 
Amintor.  A  single  scene 1  serves  to  unite  the  stories  of  Evadne 
and  Aspatia,  whom  Amintor  had  forsaken  for  Evadne,  and  carry 
on  the  action  to  the  final  catastrophe.  Aspatia,  disguised  as 
her  brother,  comes  to  Amintor,  determined  to  provoke  him  to 
fight  and  thus  to  enjoy  the  sad  pleasure  of  dying  by  the  hand 
of  the  man  she  loves.  He  refuses  to  fight  the  brother  of  the 
woman  he  has  wronged  and  laments  his  falseness  to  Aspatia. 
She  goads  him  to  fight  and  finally  charges  him  with  cow- 
ardice. Then  he  draws,  and  after  a  pass  or  two  of  the  swords, 
she  falls,  apparently  dead.  Evadne  then  enters,  "her  hands 
bloody  with  a  knife, ' '  and  announces  to  Amintor  that  she  has 
just  killed  the  king  and  begs  him  therefore  to  grant  her  his 

*v.  4. 

114 


love.  Amintor  turns  away,  horrified  by  the  two  murders  and 
the  reawakened  consciousness  of  his  love  for  this  guilty  woman, 
whereupon  Evadne  stabs  herself  with  the  fine  acting  cry — 

"  Amintor,  thou  shalt  love  me  now  again : 
Go  ;  I  am  calm.     Farewell,  and  peace  forever  ! 
Evadne,  whom  thou  hat'st,  will  die  for  thee." 

Amintor  returning  strives  in  vain  to  stay  her  hand,  and  then 
soliloquizing  over  the  two  bodies,  resolves  to  bear  them  com- 
pany, but  long  Before  he  dies  to  beg  Aspatia's  forgiveness. 
While  he  is  speaking  she  revives  and  hears  his  closing  lament. 
She  lives  long  enough  to  make  herself  known  and  dies  in  his 
arms. 

"Give  me  thy  hand ;  my  hands  grope  up  and  down, 
And  cannot  find  thee ;  I  am  wondrous  sick  : 
Have  I  thy  hand,  Amintor?  " 

Then,  after  vainly  striving  to  bring  her  to  life,  Amintor  stabs 
himself. 

"Must  I  talk  now?     Here's  to  be  with  thee,  love !  " 

Here  we  have  a  number  of  situations,  some  not  uncommon 
on  the  stage,  welded  together  in  a  denouement  which  is  per- 
haps unequalled  by  any  other  in  the  Elizabethan  drama  in  its 
power  to  hold  the  interest  of  an  audience  at  fever  heat.  It 
holds  this  interest,  moreover,  after  a  scene  of  the  greatest 
acting  power;  it  solves  the  difficult  dramatic  problem  of  main- 
taining the  interest  from  the  climax  to  the  catastrophe.  And 
yet  this  is  no  more  than  a  fair  example  of  the  care  with  which 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  invariably  heightened  their  denoue- 
ments. While  joining  and  contrasting  a  large  number  of  situa- 
tions, involving  all  sorts  of  vicissitudes  and  misfortunes,  while 
infusing  each  situation  with  dramatic  power  and  advancing  to 
an  intensely  powerful  climax,  they  also  seem  to  have  been 
more  careful  than  their  contemporaries  in  the  development  of 
a  striking  stage  denouement. 

Another  marked  characteristic  of  their  romances  is  their  use 
of  tragi-comedy.  The  term  had  been  in  use  at  least  since  the 
days  of  Edwards' s  Damon  and  Pithias,  "  a  tragicall  comedy," 
licensed  in  1567;  and  Elizabethan  plays  had  been  in  general, 
as  Sidney  charged,  neither  right  tragedies  nor  right  comedies. 
There  were  many  plays  before  1601  with  a  mixture  of  tragic 
and  comic  material  and  many  plays  like  fames  /For  Much  Ado 
which  introduced  a  happy  denouement  as  the  end  of  a  tragic 
action.  Few  plays  of  this  latter  sort,  however,  are  to  be  found 
after  1600  and  before  1608-9  >  only  four,  in  fact,  are  extant 
that  could  be  classed  as  romantic  tragi-comedies,  the  Gentle- 
man Usher,  the  Dumb  Knight,  the  Malcontent,  and  Measure 
for  Measure.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  use  of  tragi-comedy 


was  something  of  an  innovation  and  it  also  involved  some  de- 
velopment in  that  type. 

This  is  shown  by  considering  some  of  the  characteristics  we 
have  already  noted  in  their  material  and  construction.  The 
excitation  of  a  great  variety  of  emotions,  especial  skill  in  de- 
veloping the  chances  for  powerful  action  in  each  situation,  care 
for  an  effective  denoument — these  are  traits  which  mark  a 
development  in  tragi-comedy  as  well  as  tragedy.  Tragi-comedy 
is  a  term  covering  so  many  kinds  of  plays  that  it  is  difficult  to 
differentiate  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  contribution  to  that 
kind  of  drama  from  their  contribution  to  the  drama  in  general. 
We  may,  however,  say  that  their  tragi -comedies  are  especially 
distinguished  from  earlier  ones  by  their  constant  and  violent 
contrast  of  the  varying  emotions  suited  to  tragedy  with  those 
suited  to  comedy  and  by  their  peculiar  handling  of  the  happy 
ending. 

They  are  constantly  joining  the  emotions  arising  from  senti- 
mental love  with  those  arising  from  the  most  tragic  circum- 
stances. Now  in  the  tragi -comedies  immediately  preceding 
we  have  the  tragic  results  of  villainy  converted  into  happiness, 
but  sentimental  love  is  not  prominent.  Impending  tragedy  is 
not  always  struggling  with  sentimental  bliss.  In  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher's  hands,  for  example,  Mariana's  love-lorn  devotion 
to  Angelo  would  have  been  highly  developed  and  formed  a  by- 
plot  of  the  play,  or  perhaps  Isabella  would  have  been  dis- 
tinguished by  a  sentimental  devotion  to  some  lover  in  the 
power  of  the  villain.  In  Marston's  Malcontent,  the  gross  pas- 
sion of  Aurelia  would  have  been  contrasted  with  the  pure  love 
of  some  other  woman;  Malevole  might  have  been  accompanied 
in  his  retirement/ by  some  Bellario  instead  of  being  provided 
with  a  constant/vife  who  remains  in  seclusion. 

To  find  a  union  of  sentimental  and  tragic  interest  in  romantic 
plays  before  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  we  shall  have  to  go  back 
before  1600  to  plays  like  James  IV  %.\\&J\4ur.h  A^do.  The  ro- 
mances differ  from  these  in  the  dramatic  heightening  of  the 
conflict  between  the  tragic  and  sentimental  emotions.  Much 
Ado  is  a  sentimental  comedy  turned  to  tragedy  by  slander  and 
jealousy  and  then  to  a  comedy  again  by  discovery  of  villainy. 
In  James  IV,  unrighteous  passion  seems  likely  to  lead  to 
tragedy,  but  sentimental  love  conquers  and  brings  about  final 
happiness.  In  Philaster  and  A  King  and  No  King,  sentiment 
has  no  such  simple  conflict  with  evil.  Through  the  five  acts 
pure  love  is  constantly  on  the  rack  of  tragic  circumstances. 
One  element  of  the  plot  of  Philaster  will  illustrate  the  com- 
plicated union  of  the  emotions  of  comedy  and  tragedy.  Philaster 
is  in  love  with  Arethusa,  of  whom  he  is  jealous  on  account  of 
Bellario,  a  page  who  is  really  a  girl  in  love  with  him.  This 
complication  gives  rise  to  a  constant  interchange  of  varying 

116 


emotions  such  as  cannot  be  found  in  the  early  comedies  or  else- 
where, except,  perhaps,  in  Cymbeline.  To  a  degree  which 
cannot  be  asserted  of  their  predecessors,  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
fused  together  sentimental  comedy  and  heroic  tragedy. 

In  the  matter  of  the  denouement,  a  comparison  of  the  ro- 
mances with  the  preceding  tragi-comedies  of  1601-9  wiH 
illustrate  the  contribution  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  The 
construction  of  the  Gentleman  Usher  and  the  Dumb  Knight  is 
too  crude  to  justify  comment;  in  Measure  for  Measure  and  the 
Malcontent  there  are  some  noticeable  points  of  similarity.  In 
each  case  there  is  a  disguised  duke  who  ferrets  out  the  villains, 
and  the  audience  understands  from  the  first  his  disguise  and 
purpose.  The  main  action  moves  toward  a  tragic  catastrophe, 
but  in  each  play  this  is  averted  by  the  management  of  the  duke, 
and  the  crimes  of  the  villain  are  exposed  and  pardoned.  In 
Measure  fot  Measure  the  denouement  is  really  a  long  explana- 
tion, in  the  Malcontent  it  is  managed  somewhat  effectively  by 
a  masque,  but  it  is  also  merely  an  unravelling  of  an  action 
which  the  audience  understands  from  the  start. 

In  Philaster  and  A  King  and  No  King  there  is  no  such  early 
divulging  of  the  character  of  the  denouement.  From  the 
varied  nature  of  the  situations  through  which  the  action  is 
developed,  a  free  chance  is  left  to  make  it  either  tragic  or  happy. 
Skillfully  elaborated  after  the  authors'  fashion,  its  happy  char- 
acter comes  as  a  telling  surprise.  It  becomes  the  real  climax 
of  the  action.  Instead  of  a  mere  explanation  with  a  pardon 
attached,  the  happy  ending  becomes  in  their  hands  a  particu- 
larly effective  and  surprising  culmination  of  a  series  of  tragic 
situations. 

Up  to  the  last  scene  their  romances  are  all  tragi-comedies  in 
their  mixture  of  contrasting  emotions  or  they  are  all  tragedies 
in  the  intensity  with  which  the  emotions  are  worked  up  to  a 
tragic  climax.  Then  the  denouement  follows,  highly  developed 
and  tragic  or  happy  as  the  case  may  be.  The  style  of  tragi- 
comedy which  results  seems  to  have  been  peculiarly  their  own 
and  seems  to  have  been  the  result  of  a  more  or  less  deliberate 
effort  for  stage-effectiveness. 

Now  some  critical  knowledge  of  dramatic  rules  and  types 
must  be  assumed  in  most  of  the  leading  dramatists  writing  as 
late  as  1607-11.  We  have  already  passed  over  evidence  that 
the  romances  owe  their  characteristic  traits  to  no  uncritical 
consideration  of  dramatic  rules  and  precedents.  Fletcher 
working  with  Shakspere  certainly  produced  in  Henry  VIII  a 
chronicle  history  following  the  methods  which  he  abandoned 
in  the  romances,  and  he  also  himself  wrote  historical  plays. 
The  freedom  of  the  romances  from  either  the  material  or  the 
methods  of  historical  plays  cannot  have  been  wholly  undelib- 
erate.  Beaumont  early  in  his  career  wrote  the  Woman  Hater, 

117 


a  satirical  comedy,  and  later  that  unique  burlesque  the  Knight 
of  the  Burning  Pestle.  Fletcher  early  in  his  career  wrote  come- 
dies of  intrigue  dealing  with  English  manners  and  a  pastoral 
play  on  Italian  models.  The  change  from  such  types  as  these 
to  one  so  diverse  as  that  of  the  romances  cannot  have  been 
critically  unconscious.  Moreover  all  the  main  traits  of  the 
romances,  like  the  use  of  tragi-comedy,  seem  to  have  been  the 
result  of  careful  striving  for  theatrical  effect. 

r- That  the  choice  of  tragi-comedy  was  deliberate  may  be  further 

(     inferred,  I  think,  from  Fletcher's  explanation  prefixed  to  the 
\__Faithful  Shepherdess,  "a  pastoral  tragi-comedy." 

*  "  A  tragi-comedy  is  not  so  called  in  respect  of  mirth  and 
killing,  but  in  respect  it  wants  deaths,  which  is  enough  to 
make  it  no  tragedy,  yet  brings  some  near  it  which  is  enough 
to  make  it  no  comedy,  which  must  be  a  representation  of  fami- 
liar people,  with  such  kind  of  trouble  as  no  life  shall  be  ques- 
tioned; so  that  a  god  is  as  lawful  in  this  as  in  a  tragedy  and 
mean  people  as  in  a  comedy." 

This,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  the  first  definition  in  English  of  a 
tragi-comedy.  Perhaps,  in  view  of  their  development  of  tragi- 
comedy, it  is  not  straining  this  passage  too  far  to  say  that 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  the  first  to  study  the  type  and 
formulate  its  rules. 

Their  style  of  tragi-comedy  seems  to  have  gained  instant 
popularity  in  Philaster  and  A  King  and  No  King.  It  is  easy, 
indeed,  to  see  how  popular  such  plays  must  have  been  with 
audiences  who  had  no  prejudices  of  taste  against  a  mixture  of 
opposite  emotions,  who  demanded  a  representation  of  violent 
passions  and  tragic  events,  and  who  still  must  have  had 
something  of  our  modern  sympathetic  interest  in  the  triumph 
of  true  love  and  the  final  happiness  of  heroes  and  heroines. 
Its  popularity  was,  in  fact,  long  continued.  Though  it  fell 
into  disuse  for  a  number  of  years  following  1600,  yet  after  its 
revival  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  Shakspere  it  maintained 
its  popularity  until  the  closing  of  the  theaters.  Fletcher,  after 
Beaumont  ceased  play  writing,  Massinger,  and  Shirley  used  it 
freely.  After  the  Restoration  it  continued  on  the  stage  until 
the  complete  triumph  of  pseudo-classicism.  Thus  Dry  den  in 
his  Essay  on  Dramatick  Criticism  declares  that  the  English 
"  have  invented,  increased  and  perfected  a  more  pleasing  way 
of  writing  for  the  stage  than  was  ever  known  to  the  ancients 
1  or  moderns  of  any  nation — which  is  tragi-comedy." 

While  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  not  the  inventors  of  tragi- 
comedy, they  were  at  least  its  increasers  and  perfecters.  While 
here  again  they  made  use  of  the  practice  of  their  predecessors, 
their  critical  and  effective  use  of  the  form  had  its  effect  on  the 
later  history  of  the  drama.  However  we  may  estimate  the 
importance  of  their  particular  development  of  the  form,  they 

118 


were  certainly  prominent  in  bringing  about  a  revival  of  tragi- 
comedies and  they  produced  two  remarkable  for  theatrical 
success. 

With  this  use  of  tragi-comedy  we  have  finished  the  important 
characteristics  of  the  material  and  construction  of  the  plots  of 
the  romances.  We  have  seen  that  to  a  considerable  degree 
each  of  these  characteristics  was  an  innovation  and  that  each 
worked  for  greater  stage  effectiveness.  Taken  together  they 
distinguish  the  romances  from  the  preceding  plays  of  the  decade 
and  go  far  to  explain  their  popularity.  Before  going  on  to 
discuss  their  characterization  and  style,  it  may  not  be  out  of 
place  to  refer  to  the  earliest  play  which  exemplifies  all  these 
traits  of  the  plots  and  to  suggest  that  these  traits  are  in  them- 
selves enough  to  vouch  for  its  originality  and  popularity.  In 
its  material,  its  construction,  and  its  effective  happy  ending, 
PhitasfermMst  have  attracted  by  its  novelty  and  its  acting  quali- 
ties. No  plays  in  the  preceding  ten  years  resembled  it  in  these 
important  traits,  while  these  traits  do  reappear  in  the  succeed- 
ing romances  and  in  many  other  plays  of  the  following  thirty 
years.  I/ike  Tamburlaine  and  Every  Man  in  His  Humour, 
Philaster  seems  to  have  introduced  a  type  of  play  of  wide  in- 
fluence in  the  drama.  In  it  and  the  other  romances  we  have\ 
already  found  considerable  to  support  the  statement  of  J.  Ad- 
dington  Symonds  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  ' '  the  in- 
ventors  of  heroical  romance. 1 ' J 

B.     Characterization. 

From  the  very  nature  of  their  plots  these  romances  must 
lack  individualization  in  their  characters.  They  are  not,  like 
the  historical  tragedies,  devoted  to  the  presentation  of  real 
people;  they  are  merely  collections  of  situations  which  give 
vivid  momentary  pictures  of  passions.  They  do  not,  like  the 
Duchess  of  Malfi  and  some  other  dramatizations  of  Italian 
novelle,  imbue  the  bare  situations  with  psychologic  realism; 
they  place  the  whole  emphasis  on  situations  and  denouments. 
Their  method  of  construction,  therefore,  does  not  favor  consis- 
tency in  developing  character;  it  merely  requires  that  the 
various  characters  be  exhibited  under  exciting  circumstances.  , 

Thus  Philaster  is  at  one  moment  confronted  with  the  proffer 
of  a  kingdom;  at  another,  confronted  with  a  proffer  of  love 
from  the  woman  he  adores;  at  another,  brought  face  to  face 
with  proofs  of  her  faithlessness;  at  another  so  placed  that  in 
spite  of  his  jealousy  he  will  pardon  both  her  and  her  supposed 
lover;  and  at  still  another,  brought  to  such  a  pitch  of  fury  that 
he  tries  to  kill  them  both.  Presented  in  so  great  a  variety  of 

1  The  Mermaid  Series.  Christopher  Marlowe.  General  introduc- 
tion, p.  xxv. 

119 


moods,  he  necessarily  loses  individuality.  He  is  at  different 
moments  an  irresolute  prince,  a  fervent  lover,  a  jealous  mad- 
man, and  a  coward  who  cannot  fight;  he  is  never  a  real  in- 
dividual. In  the  same  way  most  of  the  characters  are  pre- 
sented as  the  actors  in  a  series  of  improbable  incidents;  Amin- 
tor  in  the  Maid' s  Tragedy  and  Leucippus  in  Cupid 's  Revenge, 
in  particular,  displaying  an  utter  lack  of  consistency  in  delin- 
eation. 

Similarly,  when  the  situations  are  made  of  chief  importance, 
there  can  be  no  shading  in  characterization.  All  the  people 
must  be  indubitably  bad  or  indubitably  good.  There  must  be 
no  doubt  or  hesitation  in  regard  to  their  purposes,  or  the  situa- 
tion will  lose  some  of  its  effectiveness.  They  must  be  from 
the  first  far  within  or  far  without  the  pale  of  our  sympathies. 
Their  characters,  in  brief,  must  be  exaggerated  and  intensified; 
and  still  further,  since  there  is  no  better  way  to  accomplish 
such  exaggeration  than  by  contrast,  we  may  expect  to  find 
the  very  evil  ones  set  off  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  very  good. 

Take  for  example  the  women  of  the  romances.  Each  play 
has  one  very  evil  woman  and  at  least  one  very  good  one.  The 
evil  women,  it  must  be  confessed,  have  more  individuality  than 
any  other  of  the  characters,  Evadne  being  about  as  living  a 
piece  of  human  flesh  as  was  ever  put  upon  paper;  at  the  same 
time  they  are  all  extremely  bad  women.  Arethusa,  Ordella, 
Euphrasia  and  the  rest  are,  on  the  contrary,  extremely  good 
and  pure  and  lovable.  In  the  same  way,  among  the  men  we 
find  a  tendency  to  intensification  and  vivid  contrast  at  the  ex- 
pense of  all  semblance  of  reality.  The  heroes  like  Philaster 
and  Leucippus  are  very  pure  and  generous  and  noble,  and  the 
bad  men  like  Pharamond,  Protaldy,  and  Timantius  are  so  bad 
that  they  are  inhumanly  repugnant.  These  furnish,  perhaps, 
the  most  marked  examples  of  exaggeration  and  contrast. 

Again,  the  over  emphasis  placed  on  the  theatrical  effective- 
ness of  the  situations  is  likely  to  involve  characterization  by 
description  rather  than  by  strictly  dramatic  means.  The 
writer  who  is  striving  after  telling  situations  and  who  is  care- 
less of  individualization  but  desirous  of  producing  intense 
contrasts  in  characterization,  naturally  finds  that  a  character 
can  be  most  effectively  presented  by  the  descriptions  and  com- 
ments of  other  persons.  In  this  way,  the  interest  of  the 
audience  is  at  once  removed  from  the  development  of  character 
and  is  centered  on  the  development  of  plot.  At  the  same 
time,  the  sympathies  of  the  audience  are  from  the  first  directed 
to  the  proper  persons.  Without  pressing  too  far  the  natural 
connection  between  the  tragedy,  which  depends  largely  on 
situations  and  this  method  of  characterization  by  description, 
the  latter  may  certainly  be  classed  as  a  notable  characteristic 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

120 


For  example,  such  a  character  as  the  love-lorn  ^maiden 
plainly  requires  something  besides  her  action  and  words  to 
gain  immediately  for  her  the  sentimental  sympathies  of  an 
audience.  So  Bellario,  before  she  appears  on  the  stage,  is 
described  by  Philaster,  in  a  speech  of  thirty  lines,  beginning : 

"  I  have  a  boy 

Sent  by  the  gods,  I  hope  to  this  intent, 
Not  yet  seen  in  the  court."  l 

In  the  same  fashion,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Maid* s  Tragedy, 
Aspatia  is  described  in  the  speech  : 

"  But  this  lady 

Walks  discontented  with  her  watery  eyes 
Bent  on  the  earth."2 

In  the  first  scene  of  the  Maid's  Tragedy,  in  fact,  not  only  is 
Aspatia  described  by  Lysippus  in  this  speech  of  nineteen  lines; 
Amintor  is  also  described  by  Melantius  in  fourteen  lines,  and 
Melantius  by  Lysippus  in  eight  lines.  Throughout  the  play, 
the  characters  will  be  found  to  be  presented  not  only  by  stated 
descriptions  but  also  by  frequent  comments,  eulogistic  or 
denunciatory,  from  the  other  actors. 

Still  another  trait  of  the  characterization  requires  especial 
notice.  All  the  principal  characters  are  people  of  the  court  ; 
even  those  who  are  utterly  detestable  hold  positions  of  rank. 
When  persons  outside  of  the  court  are  introduced,  they  are 
altogether  vulgar  nrulJniiignifipnnt  liVp  theLWo^drrLgn  nnd  the 
leaders  of  the  mob  in  Philaster.  This  practice  is  in  accordance 
with  the  classical  dogma  that  tragedy  must  deal  with  people 
of  rank  and  it  is  in  accordance  with  general  Elizabethan 
practice ;  but  it  is  worth  noting  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
had  only  ridicule  for  the  domestic  plays  and  apprentice 
comedies  of  Heywood  and  Dekker,  and  that  they  were  long 
distinguished  for  their  faithful  presentation  of  gentlemen  and 
courtiers. 

So  far,  then,  we  have  noticed  a  few  of  the  traits  which  dis- 
tinguish the  characterization  of  the  romances.  Keeping  these 
traits  in  mind — the  court  rank  of  the  characters,  their  presen- 
tation by  description,  the  over-emphasis  of  their  predominant 
qualities,  and  the  disregard  for  individual  consistency — we  can 
evidently  sum  up  the  result  by  saying  that  the  characters  are 
not  individuals,  but  types.  Remembering,  too,  that  the  plots 
of  the  romances  have  a  generic  similarity,  we  may  expect 
these  types  to  be  repeated  until  they  become  conventionalized. 
In  our  discussion  of  the  chronology  of  the  plays,  we  have,  in 
fact,  already  noticed  that  several  types  were  repeated.8  We 

1  Philaster,  I,  2. 

2  Maid's  Tragedy,  I,  i. 

8  Cf.  ante,  pp.  69  and  81. 

10  121 


shall  now  change  our  point  of  view  and  leave  the  consideration 
of  specific  traits  of  characterization,  in  order  to  examine  the 
conventionalized  types  which  resulted. 

First,  there  are  the  love-lorn  maidens  :  three  of  whom, 
Aspatia,  in  the  Maid' s  Tragedy,  Urania,  in  Cupid 's  Revenge, 
and  Bellario-Euphrasia,  in  Philaster,  masquerade  in  boys' 
clothing.  Spaconia,  in  A  King  and  No  King,  is  of  the  same 
sort ;  and  Panthea,  in  A  King  and  No  King,  Ordella,  in 
Thierry  and  Theodoret,  and  Arethusa,  in  Philaster,  can  hardly 
be  distinguished  from  the  others  except  by  their  royal  birth 
and  consequent  suitability  for  marriage  to  the  heroes.  The 
other  four,  for  some  reason,  cannot  be  married  and  con- 
sequently are  embellished  with  all  the  sentimentality  adherent 
to  an  unrequited  passion. 

There  had  been  many  maidens  of  this  general  type  on  the 
stage  since  Elizabethan  poets  first  began  to  dramatize  Italian 
novels;  and  the  type  had  been  used  very  effectively,  at  least 
as  early  as  the  plays  of  Robert  Greene.  Examples  from 
Shakspere's  comedies  will  be  at  once  recalled,  and  the  senti- 
mental boy  and  girl  love  story  had  a  place  in  all  kinds  of 
drama.  For  a  number  of  years,  however,  before  the  romances 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  we  have  found  that  neither  the 
sentimental  love  story  nor  the  love-stricken  maiden  had  been 
popular  in  the  London  theaters.  Shakspere  scarcely  used 
the  type  from  Twelfth  Night  to  Cymbeline,  and  the  other  lead- 
ing dramatists  of  the  period  likewise  abandoned  it.  After  the 
Beaumont-Fletcher  romances,  the  sentimental  maiden  had  a 
new  and  long  lease  of  popularity.  Thus,  in  altering  Romeo 
and  Juliet,  Otway  made  Lavinia  (Juliet)  wander  from  home, 
lose  her  way  in  the  woods,  meet  her  lover  there,  and  offer 
her  services,  exactly  like  one  of  the  heroines  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher.1  They  seem  to  deserve  credit  for  the  revival  of  the 
sentimental  love-lorn  maiden. 

At  all  events  they  developed  the  type  beyond  all  their  prede- 
cessors. They  intensely  sentimentalized  the  character.  They 
emphasized  over  and  over  again  the  purity,  the  meekness, 
the  utter  self-abnegation  of  these  maidens.  They  were  made 
eager  to  serve  when  they  could  not  marry  and  supremely  de- 
voted under  the  most  discouraging  circumstances.  Dorothea 
in  James  IV,  who  has  won  some  praise  for  wifely  devotion, 
would  have  to  take  lessons  from  Bellario  who  sacrifices  herself 
for  Philaster  or  his  lady  in  every  scene.  For  pure  sentimen- 
tality Viola  in  Twelfth  Night  is  a  saucy  school  girl  in  com- 
parison with  the  watery-eyed  Aspatia.  The  type  had  never 
before  been  presented  so  elaborately  and  with  such  exaggera- 
tion. 

1  History  and  Fall  of  Caius  Marius.    IV,  2. 

122 


Upon  these  maidens  is  expended  nearly  all  the  lyrical  poetry 
of  the  plays.  The  authors'  poetic  powers  are  fairly  exhausted 
in  an  effort  to  overwhelm  them  with  sentimental  fancy,  to 
present  them  as  ideally  perfect.  However  foreign  such  an  ideal 
of  womanhood  may  be  to  our  modern  taste,  we  must  grant 
that  its  poetical  presentation  was  by  no  means  lacking  in  charm 
and  beauty. 

Such  presentations  of  ideal  maidens  are  very  different  when 
read  and  when  heard  on  the  stage.  They  doubtless  ministered 
to  a  taste  for  idyllic  poetry  and  they  are  by  no  means  separate 
from  the  principal  situations,  and  the  situation  itself  of  a  girl 
in  doublet  and  hose  seeking  her  lover  was  not  then  an  entirely 
unreal  convention.1  Just  what  charm  this  style  of  girl  exer- 
cised on  the  stage  is,  however,  difficult  to  explain,  nor  is  it 
necessary.  All  we  need  to  remember  is  that  they  have  little 
individuality,  that  they  are  utterly  romantic,  utterly  removed 
from  life,  dependent  for  their  charm  almost  entirely  on  the 
poetry  with  which  they  are  described;  and  further,  that  they 
form  one  of  the  most  distinguishing  features  of  the  Beaumont- 
Fletcher  romances. 

Secondly,  there  are  the  evil  women:  Evadne  in  the  Maid  s 
Tragedy  ,*¥>2iQha.  in  Cupid's  Revenge,  Megra  in  Philaster  and  the 
two  queen-mothers,  Brunhalt  in  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  and 
Arane  in  A  King  and  No  King.  Four  of  these  brazenly  con- 
fess adultery,  and  four  attempt  or  commit  murder.  They  are 
generally  distinguished  by  an  absence  of  all  shame,  and  utter 
depravity. 

Thirdly,  there  are  the  lily-livered  heroes,  as  Mr.  Oliphant 
calls  them.     Philaster,  Amintor,  and  Leucippus  are  so  abso- 
lutely alike  that  they  could,  so  far  as  they  have  any  personality, 
readily  be  exchanged.     They  are  all  very  loving,  very  noble,  , ,  r? 
very  generous;  otherwise  they  have  no  characteristics  which ' 
outlast  a  single  situation.      Thierry  and  Arbaces  present  a  ft  5. 
somewhat  different  type,  in  which  ungovernable   passion   is 
largely  emphasized. 

Fourthly,  there" ~a¥e  the  faithful  friends:  Dion  in  Philaster, 
Melantius  in  the  Maid's  Tragedy,  Martell  in  Thierry  and  Theo- 
doret, Ismeneus  in  Cupid1  s  Revenge,  and  Mardonius  in  A  King 
and  No  King.  The  men  of  this  type  are  always  blunt  coun- 
sellors, brave  soldiers,  and  devoted  friends.  They  possess  a 
rough  humor,  an  impatience  of  deceit,  and  an  eagerness  for 
action.  There  is  scarcely  an  individual  peculiarity  among  the 
five. 

Fifthly,  there  are  the  poltroons:  Pharamond  in  Philaster, 
Protaldy  in  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  Timantius  in  Cupid' s  Re- 
venge, and  Bessus  in  A  King  and  No  King.  They  are  all  cowards, 

1  See  the  English  Novel  in  the  Time  of  Shakespeare.  J.  J.  Jusserand. 
London,  1890.  pp.  238-9. 

123 


scoundrels,  and  beasts.  Their  baseness,  however,  is  always  a 
little  relieved  by  humorous  treatment. 

These  five  types  thus  include  all  the  principal  persons  of  the 
romances.  Of  course  the  examples  under  each  type  present 
some  individual  differences  and  also  vary  in  vividness  of  por- 
traiture; Bellario,  for  example,  is  much  more  carefully  drawn 
than  Urania,  and,  as  has  been  stated,  Evadne  has  individuality 
enough.  Nevertheless  the  resemblance  among  the  examples 
of  each  type  is  unmistakable,  and  "on  the  stage  even  more  than 
in  print  they  must  have  seemed  to  all  intents  identical. 

For  further  assurance  of  the  favor  in  which  these  five  types 
were  regarded  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  we  may  well  recall 
our  examination  of  Cupid' s  Revenge  and  Thierry  and  Theodoret. 
In  both  plays,  it  will  be  remembered,  they  developed  the  evil 
woman  and  the  hero  from  slight  hints  in  the  prose  narrative; 
and  in  both  plays,  with  scarcely  a  hint  from  the  narratives, 
they  added  distinctly  drawn  portraitures  of  the  poltroon,  the 
faithful  friend,  and  the  love-lorn  maiden.  Whether  such  repe- 
tition was  deliberate  or  not,  it  could  hardly  have  taken  place 
unless  the  types  of  characters  were  popular  on  the  stage.  That 
they  were,  there  can  be  little  doubt.  In  spite  of  their  lack  of 
individuality  they  are  presented  with  absolute  distinctness, 
their  predominant  traits  are  unmistakably  emphasized,  and  by 
their  very  lack  of  individuality  they  are  the  better  suited  for 
violent  acting  and  romantically  impossible  situations. 

C.     Style. 

The  attempt  to  separate  the  work  of  Beaumont  from  that  of 
Fletcher  has  led  to  so  thorough  a  discussion  of  the  poetic  style 
of  each  that  any  treatment  on  my  part  must  be  largely  repeti- 
tion. Without  attempting  any  exhaustive  analysis,  however, 
there  are  a  few  points  which  are  of  importance  in  distinguish- 
ing their  styles 'from  those  of  their  predecessors  and  of  interest 
in  connection  with  the  versification  of  Shakspere's  romances. 
In  order  to  examine  these  points  it  will  -be  necessary  to  con- 
sider the  two  dramatists  separately. 

Fletcher.  The  most  marked  trait  of  Fletcher's  versification  is 
the  unparalleled  abundance  of  feminine  endings  which  often 
occur  in  a  proportion  of  two  out  of  three.  Analogous  to  this 
is  his  use  of  redundant  syllables  in  the  middle  of  a  line.  The 
effect  of  all  this  is  to  conceal  the  metre  and  make  the  verse 
approach  as  nearly  as  verse  may  to  the  freedom  and  natural- 
ness of  ordinary  speech.  He  uses  little  or  no  prose  in  his  plays, 
for  his  blank  verse  answers  the  purpose.  In  comparison  with 
the  fixed  rhythm  of  the  early  Elizabethans,  one  often  wonders, 
indeed,  if  Fletcher  is  writing  in  metre  at  all.  The  change  from 
the  old,  regularly  accented,  declamatory  lines  to  his  irregular, 

124 


conversational  style  is  almost  like  the  change  from  blank  verse 
to  prose. 

As  Mr.  Macaulay  says:  "  No  mouthing  is  possible,  no  round- 
ing off  of  description  or  sentence;  all  must  be  abrupt  and  almost 
spasmodic;  the  outcome  of  the  moment,  untramelled  as  far  as 
may  be  by  any  metre,  though  metre  of  some  sort  there  always 
is.  It  is  an  absolute  breaking  away  from  the  rigidity  of  the 
older  style."1 

The  second  marked  characteristic  of  Fletcher's  verse  is  his 
avoidance  of  run-over  and  use  of  end-stopt  lines.  This  prac- 
tice, however,  by  no  means  produces  anything  like  the  effect 
of  the  end-stopt  lines  of  Shakspere's  early  plays.  The  effect 
is  again  an  approach  to  the  fragmentary  utterance  of  ordinary 
conversation.  Thus,  rhyme  is  very  rarely  used,  and  periodic 
sentences  are  generally  avoided.  There  is  rarely  an  attempt  at 
elaborate,  connected  description,  and  never  anything  like  the 
descriptive  set  pieces  of  the  early  dramatists.  Images  are  merely 
suggested,  never  elaborately  finished;  parentheses  are  admitted 
in  abundance;  and  the  whole  effect  is  that  of  unpremeditated 
and  disconnected  discourse.  To  quote  Mr.  Macaulay  again: 
' '  Impulses  seem  to  work  before  the  eyes  of  the  spectator,  the 
speakers  correct  themselves,  explain  by  parentheses  hastily 
thown  in,  or  add  after  thoughts  as  they  occur  to  the  mind."2 

This  use  of  parentheses  is  of  enough  importance  to  be  marked 
as  the  third  important  trait  of  Fletcher's  style.  No  trick  of 
his  structure  so  instantly  impresses  the  reader.  To  the  reader, 
indeed,  the  abundance  of  parentheses  often  makes  the  sentences 
confused  and  unintelligible;  spoken  on  the  stage,  however, with 
the  aid  of  gesture,  these  parentheses  must  have  contributed 
largely  toward  procuring  the  effect  of  spontaneous  speech. 

A  few  lines,  taken  almost  at  random,  will  illustrate  to  what 
an  extraordinary  extent  parentheses  are  used  and  how  they 
serve  to  imitate  naturalness  and  spontaneity.  In  Thierry  and 
Theodoret*  Brunhalt  speaks  to  Protaldy : 

•    "  Give  me  leave  ! 

Or  free  thyself — think  in  what  place  you  are — 
From  the  foul  imputation  that  is  laid 
Upon  thy  valour — be  bold,  I'll  protect  you — 
Or  here  I  vow — deny  it  or  forswear  it — 
These  honours  which  thou  wear'st  unworthily — 
Which,  be  but  impudent  enough  and  keep  them — 
Shall  be  torn  from  thee  with  thine  eyes." 

After  studying  a  while  for  an  ingenious  defence,  Protaldy 
replies: 

"  Oh,  I  remember't  now.     At  the  stag's  fall 
As  we  to-day  were  hunting,  a  poor  fellow 

^Francis  Beaumont,  p.  45. 
2  Francis  Beaumont,  p.  45. 
3 II,  3- 

125 


(And,  now  I  view  you  better,  I  may  say 

Much  of  your  pitch)  this  silly  wretch  I  spoke  of 

With  his  petition  falling  at  my  feet, 

(Which  much  against  my  will  he  kissed)  desired 

That,  as  a  special  means  for  his  preferment, 

I  would  vouchsafe  to  let  him  use  my  sword 

To  cut  off  the  stag's  head." 

"  I,  ever  courteous  (a  great  weakness  in  me) 
Granted  his  humble  suit."  - 

We  have  here  an  extravagant  use  of  parentheses;  serving, 
in  one  case,  the  purpose  of  quick  stage  asides,  and  in  the  other, 
the  hesitating  verboseness  of  the  stage  liar.  These  examples 
may  indicate  the  variety  of  action  which  the  parenthetical 
structure  can  serve;  it  is  used  most  frequently,  of  course,  in 
passages  of  violent  passion  and  consequently,  very  broken 
and  rapid  utterance. 

A  fourth  trait  of  Fletcher's  style,  perhaps  not  so  distinctly 
characteristic  as  the  others  but  still  unmistakably  manifest, 
is  his  use  of  conversational  abreviations  as  '  I  '11 '  for  '  I  will,' 
'  he '  s  '  for  '  he  is, '  and  '  '  t  is  '  for  '  it  is. '  Of  the  same  sort  is  his 
decided  preference  for  ''em'  rather  than  'them.'  He  uses 
such  abbreviations  in  great  abundance,  and  the  effect  of  this 
practice,  like  that  of  the  other  traits  of  his  verse,  is  clearly 
toward  a  conversational  style. 

Now  all  these  traits  become  mannerisms  and  prevail  to  an 
unwarrantable  degree.  The  end-stopt  lines  produce  a  tedious 
monotony,  and  his  redundant  syllables  a  slovenly  approach  to 
prose.  Parentheses  are  often  so  numerous  that  they  make  the 
sense  difficult,  and  colloquialisms  often  give  a  vulgar  effect  to 
passages  otherwise  dignified.  There  are  other  points,  however, 
more  important  for  our  purpose  than  his  faults. 

In  the  first  place  his  verse  shows  a  divergence  from  the 
practice  of  his  predecessors.  Totally  unlike  Marlowe's 
sounding  line  or  the  lyrical  blank  verse  of  Shakspere's  early 
plays,  it  also  differs  markedly  from  the  blank  verse  of  plays 
1 60 1  to  1 6 10.  Nor  is  the  difference  merely  that  of  indi- 
vidual mannerisms,  it  is  a  structural  difference  which  is  ot 
significance  in  the  history  of  versification  of  the  Elizabethan 
drama.  That  history  has  never  been  fully  investigated,  but 
its  general  outline  is  clear.  The  change  from  the  old  rigid, 
periodic  structure  to  a  freer,  looser  style  was  not  an  instanta- 
neous one  but  a  gradual  advance,  of  which  the  development  of 
Shakspere's  versification  is  the  most  typical  example.  The 
advance  of  his  verse  in  dramatic  freedom  from  Romeo  and 
Juliet  to  Othello  and  Antony  and  Cleopatra  is  an  advance  which 
can  be  paralleled  by  a  comparison  of  the  plays  of  the  early 
nineties  with  those  ten  years  later.  In  this  general  structural 
development,  however,  Fletcher  was  more  than  a  contributor; 
he  was  a  leader  and  a  revolutionist.  From  the  very  first  he 

126 


wrote  a  verse  which,  in  the  freedom  of  its  metre,  not  only  far 
surpassed  that  of  the  dramatists  before  1600  but  was  unap- 
proached  either  by  his  immediate  predecessors  or  followers. 
From  the  very  first,  too,  he  wrote  a  verse  which  in  its  conver- 
sational looseness,  not  only  surpassed  the  early  dramatists  but 
also  remained  an  unapproached  limit.  This  metrical  freedom 
and  conversational  looseness  are  found,  it  must  be  remembered, 
not  only  in  comedies  of  manners  but  also  in  heroic  dramas. 
Fletcher  marks  the  breaking  down  of  blank  verse,  if  you  will; 
but  he  certainly  marks  the  introduction  of  a  revolutionary 
fashion.  In  comparison  with  his  immediate  predecessors, 
his  style  was  an  innovation,  especially  in  heroic  tragedy;  and, 
it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  his  style  exercised  a  strong 
influence  on  his  contemporaries  and  successors. 

In  the  second  place,  the  question  may  be  raised  whether  the 
adoption  of  this  style  was  not  to  some  degree  deliberate.  The 
fact  that  in  his  Faithful  Shepherdess  he  wrote  a  regular  ten- 
syllable  verse  with  carefully  developed  images  and  with  few 
disconnected  phrases  and  parentheses,  at  least  shows  that  he 
could  write  in  a  lyric,  descriptive  style  when  he  chose.  The 
radical  nature  of  his  structural  innovations  also  suggests  that 
he  could  not  have  made  them  unconsciously.  At  its  best,  how- 
ever, his  verse  shows  no  sign  of  artificiality,  rather  it  seems 
more  spontaneous  than  that  of  his  predecessors.  Even  the 
marked  change  from  the  style  of  the  Faithful  Shepherdess  to 
that  of  the  romances  may  have  resulted  from  the  nature  of  the 
plays.  The  Faithful  Shepherdess  is  full  of  lyrical  descriptions 
and  is,  in  fact,  throughout  distinctly  lyrical,  while  the  romances 
are,  above  all,  effective  acting  plays.  Whether  or  not  he  defi- 
nitely planned  an  innovation  in  Elizabethan  blank  verse,  he 
must  have  formed  his  style  with  especial  reference  to  stage- 
action. 

At  all  events,  whether  there  was  conscious  purpose  or  not, 
the  effect  of  Fletcher's  innovations  is  certain.  In  the  third 
place,  then,  we  may  note  that  all  the  traits  of  his  style  unite 
to  produce  a  verse  suited  to  stage  action.  The  early  Eliza- 
bethan blank-verse,  with  its  long  periods  and  carefully  elabo- 
rated descriptions,  was  by  turns  declamatory  or  lyrical;  it  did 
not  lend  itself  readily  to  action.  Fletcher's  verse  differs  in 
every  respect  from  that;  but  in  comparison  with  blank  verse 
as  late  as  1600,  no  such  sharp  distinction  can  be  drawn.  The 
general  progress  was  toward  dramatic  freedom  in  style,  and 
Fletcher  took  part  in  the  general  progress.  Even  in  com- 
parison with  his  contemporaries,  however,  the  qualities  noticed 
in  his  verse  mark  it  as  dramatic.  It  is  not  dramatic  in  the 
sense  that  it  is  especially  suited  to  the  speakers  and  their  vary- 
ing emotions,  but  in  structure  it  is  dramatic  in  that  it  is  suited 
to  be  spoken  and  acted  on  the  stage.  The  style  of  Othello, 

127 


for  example,  is  often  instanced  as  being  magnificently  responsive 
to  dramatic  requirements;  "  not  only  is  every  word  in  charac- 
ter, but  every  word  also  adds  to  the  beauty  of  a  noble  tragic 
poem."  No  one  would  think  of  comparing  any  of  Fletcher's 
plays  with  Othello  in  these  respects.  A  few  facts,  however, 
will  show  how  Fletcher  may  sometimes  surpass  Othello  in  adapt- 
ing his  verse  to  mere  stage  action  without  regard  to  the  repre- 
sentation of  character  or  tragic  emotions.  In  Othello,  there 
are  76  speeches  of  10  lines  or  more,2  comprising  i ,  144  lines.  In 
Bonduca  (the  nearest  in  date  to  Othello  of  any  tragedy  by 
Fletcher  alone)  there  are  only  48  speeches  of  ten  lines  or  more, 
comprising  686  lines.  In  Othello  there  are  12  speeches  of 
twenty  lines  or  more,  comprising  301  lines;  in  Bonduca  6  com- 
prising 148  lines.  In  Fletcher's  tragedy  there  are  fewer  long 
declamations  and  more  rapid  dialogue. 8  In  this  respect  his  style 
in  Bonduca  seems  more  directly  designed  for  utterance  on  the 
stage  than  even  the  most  masterly  dramatic  verse  of  Shakspere. 
Fletcher  wrote  a  verse  which  by  the  freedom  of  its  metre 
and  the  looseness  of  its  structure  was  suited  both  to  the  varied 
play  of  passion  and  the  lively  exchange  of  repartee.  It  was 
a  verse  neither  to  be  declaimed  nor  recited,  but  a  verse  to  be 
spoken  on  the  stage.  We  have  seen  two  examples  which  show 
how  his  broken  phrases  served  two  specific  ends  in  stage  action; 
and  almost  any  page  from  Fletcher  will  exemplify  the  same 
thing.  Now,  however,  we  are  dealing  not  with  specific  effects 
but  with  the  general  effect.  His  style  varies,  of  course,  with 
the  situations,  but  all  his  innovations  in  structure  must  have 
aided  in  adapting  his  plays  for  stage  action.  His  very  faults 
and  mannerisms  only  emphasize  this  general  tendency.  Every 
line  helps  to  give  the  effect  of  unpremeditated  speech. 

Beaumont.  Beaumont's  verse  differs  decidedly  from  Fletch- 
er's. Although  he  does  not  avoid  the  double  ending,  he  uses 
it  far  less  frequently.  He  also  uses  unstopt  lines  in  profusion 
and  has  a  marked  liking  for  a  periodic  structure  and  extended 
descriptions.  Mr.  Macaulay  has  further  endeavored  to  prove 
that  his  style  shows  traces  of  Shakspere' s  influence  and  that, 
in  general,  his  style  is  distinguished  by  its  resemblance  to  the 

1  William  Shakspere.     B.  Wendell,     p.  286. 

2  Speeches  in  prose  are  counted  according  to  the  number  of  lines  in 
the  Globe  ed. 

3  Fletcher  cannot  be  said  always  to  be  sparing  of  long  speeches.     In 
Wit  Without  Money,  one  of  his  early  comedies,  the  number  of  speeches 
both  over  ten  and  over  20  lines  is  much  less  than  in  Bonduca.     In 
Valentinian,  however,  there  are  a  great  many  long  speeches,  67  of  ten 
lines  and  16  of  twenty.     The  number  of  long  speeches  varies  with  the 
character  of  the  plays,  and  no  generalization  could  be  made  without 
very  extensive  examination.     On  the  whole  I  think  it  can  be  said  that 
Fletcher  in  his  tragedies  and  tragi-comedies  uses  more  dialogue  com- 
posed of  very  brief  speeches  of  a  line  or  two  than  will  be  found  in  any 
other  tragedies  in  his  time. 

128 


style  of  Shakspere's  middle  period,  notably  that  of  Hamlet  and 
Twelfth  Night.  To  my  mind,  this  resemblance  is  mainly  due 
to  the  fact  that  Beaumont's  imagination  in  intensity  and  origin- 
ality, more  than  any  of  his  contemporaries,  approaches  Shak- 
spere's. In  considering  versification,  we  shall  keep  our  attention 
on  the  structure. 

In  respect  to  Beaumont's  structure,  its  difference  from 
Fletcher's,  while  noticeable,  may  for  the  sake  of  contrast  easily 
be  overestimated.  While  he  is  in  no  respect  the  innovator  that 
Fletcher  is,  it  must  not  be  thought  that  his  verse  has  much  of 
the  early  rigidity  or  that  it  is  wanting  in  Fletcher's  freedom. 
If  not  a  radical  revolutionist,  he  is  at  least  a  Girondist. 

There  are  many  distinctively  lyrical  passages  in  the  romances 
where  the  verse  is  naturally  lyric  in  structure  rather  than 
dramatic;  and  these  passages  are  usually  assigned  to  Beaumont. 
In  the  portraiture  of  the  love-lorn  maidens,  in  particular,  there 
is  a  good  deal  of  descriptive  poetry  which  is  in  the  old  manner 
rather  than  in  Fletcher's;  and  this  is  usually  assigned  to  Beau- 
mont. Moreover,  he  always  keeps  more  closely  to  a  fixed 
metre  than  Fletcher,  and  he  has  not  mannerisms  like  Fletcher's 
which  tend  directly  to  give  the  effect  of  natural  speech.  Never- 
theless, when  Beaumont  is  not  writing  purely  descriptive  poetry 
but  is  writing  speeches  to  be  acted,  his  structure  is  marked  by 
broken  phrases,  repetitions,  and  parentheses. 

An  examination  of  the  parts  vlPhilaster,  the  Maid's  Tragedy, 
and  Cupid 's  Revenge  generally  assigned  to  Beaumont,  will  in- 
dicate, I  think,  to  how  great  a  degree  this  is  true.  Since  in 
the  effort  to  distinguish  his  verse  from  Fletcher's,  this  fact  has 
been  somewhat  overlooked,  one  or  two  illustrations  may  be 
pardoned.  The  first  shall  be  from  one  of  Aspatia' s  long  speeches 
which  is  purely  operatic  in  character.  Here,  we  should  hardly 
expect  verse  suited  to  action;  but  note: 

"  If  you  needs  must  love, 

(Forced  by  ill  fate)  take  to  your  maiden  bosoms 
Two  dead-cold  aspicks,  and  of  them  make  lovers: 
They  cannot  flatter,  nor  forswear ;  one  kiss 
Makes  a  long  peace  for  all.     But  man, 
Oh,  that  beast  man  !     Come,  let 's  be  sad,  my  girls  ! 
That  down-cast  eye  of  thine,  Olympias, 
Shews  a  fine  sorrow.     Mark,  Antiphila  ; 
Just  such  another  was  the  nymph  CEnone, 
When  Paris  brought  home  Helen.     Now,  a  tear ; 
And  then  thou  art  a  piece  expressing  fully 
The  Carthage  queen,  when,  from  a  cold  sea-rock, 
Full  with  her  sorrow,  she  tied  fast  her  eyes 
To  the  fair  Trojan  ships ;  and,  having  lost  them, 
Just  as  thine  eyes  do,  down  stole  a  tear.     Antiphila, 
What  would  this  wench  do,  if  she  were  Aspatia? 
Here  she  would  stand,  till  some  more  pitying  god 
Turn'd  her  to  marble !     'Tis  enough,  my  wench  ! 
Shew  me  the  piece  of  needlework  you  wrought."  1 

1  Maid's  Tragedy.    II,  2,  last  of*the  speech. 

129 


The  remainder  of  Aspatia's  speeches  in  the  scene  will  be 
found  to  exhibit  the  same  broken  structure,  the  same  imitation 
of  natural  conversation. 

These  qualities  are  still  more  apparent  in  passages  requiring 
more  action;  for  example,  in  the  quarrel  scene  between  Melan- 
tius  and  Amintor,1  or  in  the  following  passage  from  Philaster. 

Bellario.     [aside]  "Oh  hear, 

You  that  have  plenty !  from  that  flowing  store 
Drop  some  on  dry  ground.  —  See,  the  lively  red 
Is  gone  to  guide  her  heart !     I  fear  she  faints — 
Madam?  look  up!  —  She  breathes  not.  —  Open  once  more 
Those  rosy  twins,  and  send  unto  my  lord 
Your  latest  farewell !     Oh,  she  stirs  :  — How  is  it, 
Madam?  speak  comfort." 

Arethusa.  "  'Tis  not  gently  done, 

To  put  me  in  a  miserable  life, 
And  hold  me  there  :     I  prithee,  let  me  go  : 
I  shall  do  best  without  thee  :     I  am  well." 

[Enter  Philaster.} 

Philaster.  "  I  am  to  blame  to  be  so  much  in  rage : 

I'll  tell  her  coolly,  when  and  where  I  heard 
This  killing  truth.     I  will  be  temperate 

In  speaking,  and  as  just  in  hearing. 

Oh,  monstrous  !  Tempt  me  not,  ye  gods  !  good  gods, 
Tempt  not  a  frail  man  !  What 's  he,  that  has  a  heart, 
But  he  must  ease  it  here  !  "  2 

Or  take  Philaster 's  speech  to  Pharamond,8  or,  indeed,  any  pas- 
sage in  the  play,  and  we  find  a  style  that  is  notably  suited  to 
action  on  the  stage. 

Beaumont's  very  freedom  from  Fletcher's  mannerisms  re- 
moves Fletcher's  faults  without  removing  the  acting  quality. 
Without  stopping  at  the  end  of  every  line,  he  writes  discon- 
nected and  broken  sentences  which  give  the  effect  of  spontaneity. 
Without  straining  his  metre  out  of  joint,  he  writes  a  verse 
which  is  like  spoken  discourse.  While  far  less  revolutionary 
than  Fletcher's,  his  style  is  representative  of  the  general  ad- 
vance toward  a  thoroughly  dramatic  verse.  Indeed,  when  one 
reads  the  first  three  acts  of  the  Maid's  Tragedy,  omitting 
perhaps  the  masque  and  the  idyl  of  Aspatia,  one  feels  like  ques- 
tioning if  poetry  was  ever  written  better  adapted  to  stage 
presentation. 

D.     Stage  Effects. 

We  have  seen  that  the  blank  verse  of  both  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  like  their  varied  situations  and  exciting  denouements, 
helped  to  give  their  romances  stage-effectiveness.  All  the  charac- 
teristics of  the  romances,  in  fact,  serve  the  same  end;  whatever 

1  Ibid.  Ill,  2. 

2  Philaster.    IV,  3. 
*Ibid.    I,  i. 

130 


their  permanent  literary  value,  they  certainly  must  have  acted 
capitally.  Moreover,  in  addition  to  this  general  stage-effective- 
ness, they  were  not  wanting  in  stage  pageantry  but  abounded 
in  devices  which  may  fairly  be  called  spectacular. 

Almost  all  of  these  spectacular  devices  were  borrowed  from 
the  court  masques.  These  were  very  popular  in  the  years 
1 608-16 1 1,1  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  turned  to  them  for  stage  pageantry.  In  the  Four 
Plays  there  is  a  ' '  scaffolding  full  of  spectators ' '  and  in  the 
Maid's  Tragedy,  a  "gallery  full  of  spectators."  In  these 
cases  there  is  an  obvious  attempt  to  represent  the  setting  of  a 
court  masque,  and  there  is  considerable  jesting  at  the  crowds 
which  thronged  to  those  entertainments.  In  the  Four  Plays, 
the  various  deities  that  descend  and  ascend,  the  numerous 
processions,  and  the  curious  machinery  where  ' l  the  mist  ariseth 
and  the  rocks  remove,"  2  are  all  like  similar  performances  in 
the  court  masques.  The  Four  Plays  are,  in  fact,  given  the 
form  of  an  entertainment  before  a  king  and  his  bride,  and  the 
last,  the  Triumph  of  Time,  has  unmistakably  the  form  of  a 
masque.  Theme,  spectacle,  and  dances  all  follow  the  recog- 
nized fashion.  Mercury  and  Time  appear;  "  one-half  of  a 
cloud  is  drawn,"  "singers  are  discovered,"  then  "the  other 
half  is  drawn  and  Jupiter  seen  in  his  glory."  The  main 
masque  is  danced  by  Delight,  Pleasure,  Lucre,  Craft,  Vanity, 
etc.,  and  there  is  also  an  anti-masque  of  a  "Troop  of  Indians, 
singing  and  dancing  wildly  about  Plutus."  Here  we  have 
not  merely  an  introduction  of  masque-like  pageantry  but  a 
complete  court  masque  on  the  public  stage  in  combination  with 
a  romantic  drama. 

In  the  Maid's  Tragedy,  there  is  also  a  masque,  complete  and 
elaborated  after  the  usual  manner  of  court  masques.  In  Cupid '  s 
Revenge  there  is  the  machinery  of  Cupid's  descents  and  a  dance 
by  "  four  young  men  and  maids."  8  In  Thierry  and  Theodoret 
there  is  a  dance  of  revellers.4  In  many  other  plays  by  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher  besides  the  romances,  there  are  also  masques 
or  bits  of  masque-like  pageantry — distinct  masque  elements 
occurring  in  eighteen  of  their  plays.5 

1  Seven  of  these  elaborate  and  costly  entertainments  were  given  at 
Whitehall  in  these  years.     See  Soergel,  pp.  72,  73. 

2  Triumph  of  Honour.  Sc.  II.  3I,  2.  4III,  i. 

5 The  simplest  form  of  the  masque  appears  in  the  Coxcomb  (I,  2,) 
and  Wit  at  Several  Weapons  (V,  2).  In  the  Nice  Valour  there  is  a 
dance  of  masquers  led  by  a  lady  disguised  as  Cupid  (II,  i)  ;  and  also 
an  anti-masque  of  fools,  the  lady  leading  again  (V,  i).  Anti-masques 
also  occur  in  the  Little  French  Lawyer  (IV,  5),  "  Gentlemen,  habited 
like  Ruffians;  "  in  the  Queen  of  Corinth  (II,  i),  "six  disguised,  sing- 
ing and  dancing  to  a  horrid  music  ;  "  in  the  Fair  Maid  of  the  Inn  (III, 
i),  "by  Tailor,  Dancer,  Muletteer,  Schoolmaster,  etc.,"  and  again 
(IV,  2,)  by  "four  boys  shaped  like  Frogs;  "  and  in  the  Mad  Lover 
(IV,  i),  "the  Fool  and  Servants,  disguised  in  a  masque  of  Beasts  and 


Now,  the  masque  in  its  simple  form — a  dance  by  a  group  of 
masked  revellers,  with  or  without  an  introductory  speech — 
was  common  enough  in  plays  before  the  time  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  and  the  influence  of  the  masque  on  the  drama  in  a 
general  way  has  been  emphasized  by  Mr.  Fleay  and  treated  at 
length  by  Dr.  Soergel.  The  nature  of  this  influence  in  the 
reign  of  James  I,  however,  has  not  been  fully  examined. 
Then,  as  the  court  masque  grew  more  elaborate,  its  machinery, 
costumes,  mythological  devices,  anti-masques,  and,  indeed,  its 
general  construction,  were  borrowed  or  imitated  so  freely  by  the 
dramatists  that  its  influence  on  the  drama  was  distinctly  im- 
portant. Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  undoubtedly  promoting 
what  Ben  Jonson,  who  did  not  mix  his  masques  and  plays,  called 
the  "concupiscence  of  dances  and  antics,"  x  which  in  1612  he 
declared  began  to  reign  on  the  stage. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were 
leaders  in  this  fashion  of  introducing  elements  from  the  court 
masques  on  the  public  stage.  Beaumont  wrote  the  very  suc- 
cessful court  masque  of  the  Inner  Temple  and  Grays  Inn;  and 
Jonson  told  Druinmond  that  "next  himself  only  Fletcher2  and 
Chapman  could  make  a  mask."  Moreover,  I  know  of  no 
other  dramatist  except  Shirley  who  drew  so  much  from  the 
court  masques  as  did  they.  Of  the  dramatists  writing  1608-1 1 , 
Shakspere  is  the  only  one  who  is  in  this  respect  comparable 
with  them. 

If  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  did  not  set  this  fashion,  they  were 
certainly  among  the  first  to  follow  it;  and  Jonson' s  scoffs  alone 
are  sufficient  proof  that  this  innovation  was  very  popular  with 
the  patrons  of  the  theater.  In  addition,  then,  to  the  other 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  romances,  we  must  note 
that  in  a  way  quite  different  from  any  preceding  plays  and  to 
an  extent  greater  than  other  contemporary  plays,  they  pos- 
sessed a  good  share  of  stage  pageantry  much  like  that  of 
the  fashionable  court  masques. 

Trees."  In  this  last  play  there  is  also  some  masque-like  business 
connected  with  the  priestess  of  Venus ;  in  the  Prophetess  there  is  a 
throne  on  a  cloud  drawn  by  dragons  (II,  3),  a  mist  (IV,  i),  and  "a 
Dance  of  Shepherds  and  Shepherdesses,  one  disguised  as  Pan  leading 
the  men,  another  as  Ceres,  the  maids"  (V,  3).  In  the  Humourous 
Lieutenant  (IV ',  3),  there  is  a  dance  of  spirits;  in  the  Maid  in  the 
Mill  (II,  2),  a  dance  of  goddesses,  nyniphs,  and  a  shepherd;  in  the 
faithful  Friends  (IV,  3),  a  masque  danced  by  the  ladies  with  the 
gentlemen  dressed  as  furies.  There  are  more  elaborate  masques  with 
especial  poetry  attached  in  Woman  Pleased  (V,  3),  when  there  is  also 
a  morris  dance  (IV,  i);  in  a  Wife  for  a  Month  (II,  6);  and  in  the 
False  One  (III,  4).  This  list,  while  not  including  all  the  masque 
pageantry  and  devices  is  sufficient  to  indicate  their  abundance  in  the 
plays  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  folio.  For  masque  elements  in  Henry 
r/7/and  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  see  Chap.  VIII. 

1See  "Address  to  the  reader,"  Alchemist  4to,  1612.  See  also  the 
Induction  to  Bartholomew  Fair. 

2 Possibly  Drummond's  mistake  for  Beaumont? 

I32 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
GENERAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  SHAKSPERE'S  ROMANCES. 

We  shall  now  consider  the  most  important  traits  of  Shak- 
spere's romances.  According  to  my  hypothesis  these  will  be 
found  to  distinguish  the  romances  clearly  from  Shakspere's 
earlier  plays  and  will  also  be  found  to  resemble  those  traits 
which  mark  the  romances  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

While  the  points  of  difference  from  Shakspere's  early  work 
will  be  emphasized,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  there  are 
many  points  of  likeness.  Shakspere  repeated  motives,  situa- 
tions and  types  of  character.  The  romances  owe  an  immense 
debt  to  his  preceding  plays.  All  this  cannot  be  constantly 
dwelt  upon  in  this  investigation,  but  it  must  be  freely  admitted. 
I  shall  treat,  however,  of  the  influence  of  his  early  work  only 
when  that  seems  to  interfere  with  the  hypothesis  of  contem- 
porary influence.  In  the  main  we  are  concerned  with  the  traits 
which  differentiate  the  romances  from  his  preceding  plays. 

A.  Plots. 

The  plots  of  the  romances  differ  decidedly  from  those  which 
Shakspere  had  been  using  in  the  preceding  eight  years.  During 
those  years  he  had  drawn  his  plots  largely  from  history  and 
especially  from  classical  history,  and  with  one  or  two  excep- 
tions each  plot  had  dealt  with  the  life  and  death  of  some  heroic 
person  who  gave  his  name  to  the  play.  In  Cymbeline  he  con- 
nected several  very  distinct  stories  with  a  historical  narrative; 
in  the  Winter' s  Tale  he  dramatized  an  old  romance  by  Greene; 
and  in  the  Tempest,  possibly  on  the  basis  of  an  Italian  novella, 
he  built  up  a  marvellous  story  apparently  of  his  own  invention. 
Although  the  cases  of  Cloten  and  Jachimo  might  be  cited  to 
the  contrary,  he  did  not  use  stories  of  abnormal  or  gross  sexual 
passion  such  as  attracted  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  For  the 
basis  of  each  play  he  did  take  a  story  of  pure  and  sentimental 
love.  Such  sentimental  love  stories,  it  will  be  remembered, 
were  given  a  similar  prominence  in  the  romances  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher;  and  such  sentimental  love  stories,  it  will  also 
be  remembered,  had  received  no  like  prominence  in  Shakspere's 
work  from  1601  to  1608. 

About  these  love  stories  he  weaves  many  novel  and  varied 
incidents.  The  course  of  Hero's  love,  or  even  of  Juliet's,  is 
smooth  compared  with  that  of  Imogen's.  The  attempted  se- 

133 


i 


f  duction  by  Jachimo,  the  results  of  his  over-ingenious  villainy, 
j  the  attempted  poisoning  by  the  wicked  queen,  the  idyllic  ad- 
!  ventures  of  Imogen  in  boy's  clothes,  her  supposed  death,  her 
resurrection,  her  repulsion  by  her  lover,  their  final  reconcilia- 
tion— all  these  are  the  sort  of  incidents  which  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  used  in  their  romances.  Like  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
again,  are  the  ingenious  plots  of  the  Tempest  and  the  Winter1 's 
Tale — the  love  story  of  a  girl  who  had  never  seen  a  man,  and 
the  changing  of  an  image  to  a  woman.  In  brief,  the  material 
of  the  plots,  never  taken  from  history  nor  resembling  real  life, 
is  of  a  sort  that  we  call  romantic,  of  a  sort  that  gives  theatrical 
novelty  and  variety. 

Particularly  noticeable  is  the  mixture  of  tragic  incidents 
with  idyllic.  In  this  respect  Shakspere  returns  to  his  practice 
in  early  comedies  like  the  Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona  and  Much 
Ado  about  Nothing ;  and  in  this  respect  he  also  agrees  with  the 
contemporary  romances  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  And  this 
last  resemblance  is  much  the  more  marked  of  the  two.  There 
is  plenty  of  idyllic  material  in  the  Elizabethan  drama,  and  it 
is  often  contrasted  with  tragic  material  in  Greene,  Chettle,  and 
Hey  wood,  as  well  as  in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  Shakspere; 
but  never  before  these  plays,  I  think,  had  Shakspere  united 
events  so  purely  idyllic  and  events  so  essentially  tragic  in  so 
marked  contrast  as  in  the  story  of  Imogen.-  In  the  eight  years 
preceding  the  performance  of  Cymbeline  and  Philaster  we  have 
found,  in  fact,  that  the  conjunction  of  heroic  tragedy  and  a 
sentimental  idyl  is  practically  absent  from  the  work  of  all  the 
other  dramatists  as  well  as  Shakspere.  In  the  romances  of 
Shakspere,  however,  as  in  those  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
the  tragic  and  idyllic  always  appear  in  heightened  contrast. 

Still  further  we  may  notice  the  variety  of  emotions  which 
one  of  the  plots  presents.  Shakspere  was  no  longer  dealing 
with  stories  exemplifying  one  central  emotion,  he  now  took 
plots  dealing  with  every  variety  of  emotion.  The  emotional 
unity  which  characterizes  the  tragedies  and  the  best  of  the 
comedies  is  no  longer  present.  The  emotions  described  range 
from  the  wild  jealousy  of  Leontes  to  the  pretty  sentimental 
love-making  of  Florizel.  There  is  an  evident  choice  of  intense, 
exaggerated  emotions;  there  is  no  sign  of  unity. 

Thus  in  variety  of  emotions  as  well  as  of  incidents,  in  the 
nature  of  the  central  theme,  and  in  the  marked  contrast  of 
tragic  and  idyllic  scenes,  these  plots  differ  from  those  of  Shak- 
spere's  preceding  plays.  In  all  these  particulars  they  also  differ 
from  all  plays  after  1600  and  before  Philaster,  but  they  resemble 
the  material  of  the  plots  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

Not  less  striking  than  this  change  from  his  earlier  practice 
in  the  choice  of  material,  is  Shakspere' s  change  in  the  con- 
struction of  plots.  Except  in  the  historical  parts  of  Cymbeline 

134 


lie  abandons  the  chronicle -history  method  which  he  had  used 
up  to  Coriolanus  and  adopts  the  method  of  romance — the  con- 
necting of  a  series  of  effective  situations  so  that  they  will  lead 
up  to  a  telling  denouement.  There  is  nothing  epical  about 
these  plays,  and  except  in  Cymbeline  there  are  no  camps,  battles, 
parleyings,  heralds,  trials  by  combat,  and  other  paraphernalia  of 
the  historical  tragedies.  The  heroic  romances  owe  no  allegiance 
to  history,  they  aim  solely  at  theatrical  effectiveness.  A  cur- 
sory examination  of  any  one  of  them,  of  Cymbeline  in  particular, 
will  show  that  in  every  act  there  is  a  medley  of  stage  situations 
affording  continual  variety  and  excitement.  Such  an  examina-  ' 
tion  will  also  show  that  in  comparison  with  earlier  plays  there 
are  almost  no  merely  narrative  scenes,  and  almost  no  scenes 
which  are  merely  operatic  interludes.  We  shall  have  occasion 
to  revert  to  these  statements  when  we  come  to  examine  the 
separate  plays;  for  the  present,  we  may  pass  to  the  more  de- 
finable feature  of  the  construction,  the  treatment  of  the  de- 
nouement. ^ 

Cymbeline  may  be  taken  to  show  the  transition  from  the  meth-  \ 
od  of  the  historical  tragedies  to  that  of  the  romances.  Shakspere 
was  nominally  writing  a  chronicle-history,  but  in  constructing 
the  play  he  was  not  chiefly  concerned,  as  in  Antony  and  Cleo- 
patra and  Coriolanus,  in  giving  dramatic  form  to  the  histori- 
cal narrative.  He  was  chiefly  concerned  in  supplementing 
the  narrative  with  a  large  number  of  good  stage  situations. 
The  historical  part,  in  fact,  has  so  little  connection  with  the 
stories  of  Imogen,  Posthumus  and  Jachimo,  Belarius  and  his 
sons,  that  there  is  some  reason  for  Mr.  Fleay's  conjecture1  that 
it  was  written  earlier  than  the  rest  of  the  play.  At  all  events 
the  method  of  construction  is  clearly  that  of  linking  together 
a  series  of  situations,  involving  intense  and  varied  action,  and 
preparing  for  elaborate  denouement. 

No  earlier  play  of  Shakspere 's  is  so  overladen  with  situations, 
or  places  so  much  emphasis  on  the  denouement.  As  Mr.  Wen- 
dell has  stated:  "the  last  scene  of  Cymbeline  is  among  the 
most  notable  bits  of  dramatic  structure  anywhere.  The  more 
one  studies  it,  the  more  one  is  astonished  at  the  ingenuity  with 
which  denouement  follows  denouement.  Nowhere  else  in  Shak- 
spere, certainly,  is  there  anything  like  so  elaborate  an  untying 
of  knots  which  seem  purposely  made  intricate  to  prepare  for 
the  final  situation.  Situation,  however,  is  an  inadequate  word. 
Into  485  lines  Shakspere  has  crowded  some  two  dozen  situa- 
tions any  one  of  which  would  probably  have  been  strong  enough 
to  carry  a  whole  act."  2 

This  last  statement  proves,  on  Mr.  Wendell's  analysis,  to  be 

^LifeofSh.    p.  246. 

2  William  Shakspere.   p.  358. 

135 


literally  true.  Such  a  denouement  is  evidently  not  the  natural 
outcome  of  a  tragedy  or  a  comedy;  it  is  the  elaborate  climax, 
in  preparation  for  which  the  preceding  situations  have  been 
made  involved  and  perplexing.  It  is  the  denouement  of  the 
drama  of  situations  so  arranged  as  constantly  to  excite  and 
»  vary  the  attention  of  the  spectators  up  to  the  moment  of  the 
final  unravelling.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  denouement  of 
Cymbeline  is  so  ingeniously  intricate  that  it  is  ineffective  on  the 
stage  and  thereby  defeats  the  purpose  for  which  the  ingenuity 
was  apparently  expended.  One  feels  inclined,  indeed,  to  assert 
witl^some  positiveness  that  the  artistic  skill  required  in  man- 
aging so  elaborate  a  scene  was  not  exerted  without  definite 
purpose.  The  new  technical  achievement  bespeaks  delibera- 
tion. Again  one  feels  inclined  to  conjecture  that  this  artistic 
effort  may  have  been  exerted  for  the  purpose  of  rivalling  simi- 
larly heightened  denouements  in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

Without  insisting  too  much  on  deliberate  rivalry,  we  may 
surely  say  that,  just  as  in  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  romances, 
the  elaborate  denouement  is  the  most  marked  characteristic  of 
the  construction  of  Cymbeline.  In  the  same  way  in  the  Win- 
ter1 s  Tale,  and  the  Tempest,  denouements  are  prepared  for, 
postponed,  and  heightened.  In  each,  to  quote  Mr.  Wendell 
again,  "there  is  a  new  and  bold  technical  experiment"  and 
"  the  experiment  consists  chiefly  of  a  deliberately  skillful  hand- 
ling of  the  denouement. ' ' *  Entirely  unprecedented  in  the 
preceding  plays  of  Shakspere,  such  heightened  construction 
of  the  denouement  is  practically  unprecedented  in  all  earlier 
Elizabethan  plays;  it  has  its  only  parallel  in  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher. 

Finally,  these  plays  all  end  happily.  Essentially  tragic  as 
are  the  incidents  of  Cymbeline,  the  first  three  acts  of  the  Win- 
ter1 s  Tale,  and  the  Italian  story  at  the  basis  of  the  Tempest,  no 
one  of  these  stories  is  carried  out  to  its  tragic  conclusion.  In 
Cymbeline,  the  happy  ending  is  secured  by  a  violation  of  the 
most  liberal  notions  of  poetic  justice;  in  the  Winter's  Tale  the 
happy  ending  is  deliberately  substituted  for  the  tragic  one  of 
Greene's  novel;  and  in  the  Tempest  the  happy  ending  is  ex- 
panded into  an  entire  play.  In  consequence  there  have  been 
many  speculations  in  regard  to  Shakspere' s  forgiving  charity, 
his  reconciliatory  temper,  and  his  attainment  of  a  serene,  calmly 
philosophical  maturity.  These  speculations  are  interesting  so 
far  as  they  express  to  us  the  emotional  components  of  the 
artistic  moods  in  which  these  plays  were  composed.  The  feel- 
ings which  arise  in  any  artist  during  creative  work  must,  how- 
ever, be  distinguished  from  the  practical  objective  circumstances 
which  for  most  artists,  as  for  Shakspere,  play  an  important  part 

1  William  Shakspere.     p.  377. 

136 


in  determining  the  subject  and  form  of  production.  Shak- 
spere's  moods  may  have  had  little  resemblance  to  the  emotional 
experiences  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  but  so  far  as  stage 
representation  goes,  his  romances  were  tragi -comedies,  just  as 
Philaster  and  A  King  and  No  King  were  tragi-comedies. 

We  have  seen  that  those  plays  marked  a  development  on 
earlier  tragi-comedies.  In  the  same  way  all  the  traits  which 
we  have  noticed  in  Shakspere's  romances  differentiate  them 
from  any  earlier  tragi-comedies;  and  in  particular,  the  height- 
ened contrast  of  tragic  and  idyllic  circumstances  and  the  treat- 
ment of  denouement  show  that  Shakspere  was  now  using 
tragi-comedy  with  a  fuller  realization  than  before  of  its  theat- 
rical possibilities.  In  comparison  with  earlier  plays  like  Much 
Ado  and  Measure  for  Measure,  the  romances  appeal  to  more 
varied  and  more  contrasted  emotions  and  present  happy  end- 
ings which  are  more  ingenious,  elaborate,  and  surprising. 
Without  the  archaic  abundance  of  murders,  the  virtuous  people 
are  involved  in  all  sorts  of  difficulties  and  entanglements  and 
are  brought  out  in  the  end  triumphantly  happy.  The  emotions 
of  the  spectators  are  intensely  stimulated,  and  at  the  same  time 
their  sympathies  are  gratified.  Shakspere  may  possibly  have 
written  these  plays  to  inculcate  forgiveness  or  serenity  of  dis- 
position; he  certainly  did  write  them  to  be  acted  on  the  stage 
of  the  Globe  theater.  The  happy  culmination  of  tragic  cir- 
cumstances seems  likely,  then,  to  have  had  its  origin  in  a  de- 
sire to  gratify  the  public.  At  this  time,  too,  it  was  a  new 
structural  experiment  for  Shakspere  and  an  innovation  on  the 
practice  of  his  contemporaries,  unless  it  was  an  adoption  of  a 
fashion  already  successfully  set  by  Philaster. 

B.     Characterization. 

In  characterization,  no  less  than  in  plots,  the  romances  show 
a  marked  difference  from  Shakspere's  other  plays.  The  charac- 
ters1 show,  above  all,  a  surprising  loss  of  individuality.  They 
are  less  consistent,  less  subtly  drawn,  less  plausibly  human; 
they  are  more  the  creatures  of  stage  situations.  Their  salient 
characteristics  are  exaggerated  and  emphasized  by  descriptions 
placed  in  the  mouths  of  other  persons;  and  thus  they  often 
become  such  heightened  types  of  perfect  virtue  or  utter  deprav- 
ity as  we  found  in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

These  wholesale  assertions  will  not  be  readily  accepted  by 
those  for  whom  Shakspere's  wonderful  phrasing  has  made  vital 
the  romantic  atmosphere  and  the  people  who  breathe  it.  But 
these  assertions  do  not  detract  one  whit  from  one's  admiration 

1  In  discussing  characters,  I  shall  rarely  refer  to  the  comic  charac- 
ters. They  seem  to  me  to  resemble  closely  those  in  the  earlier  plays 
and  to  have  little  likeness  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's.  For  our  pur- 
pose, then,  they  may  be  disregarded. 

137 


and  delight  in  Imogen  and  Perdita;  they  merely  point  to  a  new 
method  in  producing  that  delight.  That  this  change  in  method 
is  a  real  one,  may  be  seen  by  examining  the  methods  used  in 
the  characterization  of  the  romances  and  comparing  them  with 
the  methods  used  in  the  earlier  plays.  It  is  well,  however, 
to  remind  ourselves  again  that  Shakspere  must  have  created 
these  people  with  their  stage  presentation  in  view.  Their 
poetical  qualities  have  immortalized  them;  but  in  studying  the 
methods  of  their  creation,  we  must  keep  in  mind  their  stage 
qualities.  It  is  unsafe  to  suppose  that  an  Elizabethan  audience 
appreciated  poetry  in  a  play  more  keenly  than  audiences  do 
to-day;  and  in  studying  the  stage  qualities  of  the  characters, 
it  is  advisable  to  put  the  poetry  in  the  background.  Keeping, 
then,  to  the  point  of  view  of  spectators  at  an  Elizabethan 
theater,  we  shall  be  better  able  to  see  what  effects  Shakspere 
sought  to  produce  and  in  what  ways  his  characters  resembled 
those  of  his  fellow  playwrights. 

r  Coming  now  to  specific  characters  we  may  note  the  lack  of 
individualization  and  the  subservience  to  situation  in  lyeontes. 
It  is  easy,  of  course,  to  find  intuitive  psychology  almost  any- 
where in  Shakspere' s  phrasing;  but  one  must  be  something  of 
a  casuist,  I  think,  to  discover  a  very  real  human  being  in  Leontes. 
His  vileness  and  rage  and  his  subsequent  tenderness  and  re- 
pentance do  not  impress  one  as  the  traits  of  an  individual. 
His  feelings  are  all  intensified  to  suit  the  situations.  He  is, 
on  the  stage,  merely  a  representative  of  the  common  Eliza- 
bethan type  of  the  suspicious  husband  in  the  presence  of 
imaginary  cuckoldom.  He  is  a  piece  of  a  play,  a  convention. 
He  is  true  to  life  only  as  a  conventional  type  is  true  to  life. 
We  have  only  to  recall  how  Othello  wooed  and  loved  and  mur- 
dered and  died,  and  how  every  act  and  every  phrase  seemed  a 
part  of  a  living  man  in  the  face  of  some  of  the  most  intense 
problems  of  life — and  we  shall  see  how  greatly  the  method  of 
characterization  has  changed  in  the  Winter' s  Tale. 

In  the  same  way  as  Leontes,  Hermione  is  also  a  creature  of 
situations.  The  archness  and  wit  of  her  repartee  in  the  first 
act,  her  noble  declamation  in  the  trial  scene,  and  the  unfor- 
giving chastit}'  of  her  sixteen  years  wait,  do  not  convince  one 
that  they  belong  to  the  same  woman.  They  belong  to  the  plot. 

The  bad  characters  display  the  same  lack  of  consistency  and 
an  extraordinary  intensification  of  their  evil  traits  for  the  sake 
of  situation.  Thus,  lachimo  is  neither  the  mere  figure-head 
that  Don  John  is  in  Much  Ado,  nor  the  astonishingly  human 
monstrosity  that  lago  is;  he  is  a  stage  villain  who  has  a  telling 
acting  part  in  two  or  three  situations  and  very  little  else  in  this 
world.  This  exaggeration  of  salient  traits  is  equally  apparent 
in  the  Queen  in  Cymbeline  and  in  Sebastian  and  Antonio  in  the 
Tempest. 

138 


This  same  method  of  exaggeration  is  also  apparent  in  the 
heroines  as  well  as  the  other  methods  of  a  romantic  drama. 
To  substantiate  this  statement,  we  may  begin  with  one  who, 
to  many  people,  seems  the  most  delightful  of  Shakspere's 
heroines — I  mogen . 

"Of  all  his  women,"  says  Mrs.  Jameson,  "  considered  as 
individuals  rather  than  as  heroines,  Imogen  is  the  most  perfect." 
"Imogen,  the  most  lovely  and  perfect  of  Shakspere's  female 
characters, ' '  is  the  comment  of  Nathan  Drake.  ' '  Of  all  his 
heroines,"  says  Charles  Cowden  Clarke,  "  no  one  conveys  so 
fully  the  ideal  of  womanly  perfection  as  Imogen."  "  In  the 
character  of  Imogen, ' '  says  Schlegel,  ' '  no  one  feature  of  female 
excellence  is  omitted." 

These  quotations  indicate  well  enough  the  impression  Imogen 
gives — she  is  perfect.  Like  most  perfect  people,  she  is  not 
real,  she  is  idealized,  and  that  is  possibly  what  these  critics 
mean  by  their  perfects.  In  comparison  with  the  women  in  the 
early  sentimental  comedies,  Rosalind,  Beatrice,  Portia,  and 
Viola,  she  lacks  the  details  of  characterization,  the  mannerisms 
which  remind  us  of  real  persons  and  suggest  the  possibility 
of  portraiture.  In  comparison  with  these  heroines,  an  analysis 
of  Imogen's  character  fails  to  supply  really  individual  traits; 
one  is  thrown  back  on  a  general  statement  of  her  perfectibility. 
She  is  extremely  idealized,  or  in  other  words,  the  exigencies 
of  the  romantic  drama  required  a  heroine  who  should  be  very, 
very  good;  and  Shakspere,  by  the  delicacy  and  purity  of  his 
fancy,  by  the  exquisite  fitness  of  his  verse,  succeeded  in  doing 
just  what  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  forever  trying  to  do 
with  their  Bellarios  and  Aspatias. 

That  the  methods  of  characterization  are  the  same,  may  be 
seen  when  one  examines  Cymbeline  and  notes  just  what  Imogen 
says  and  does.  She  is  good  and  chaste  and  spirited;  she  resists 
an  attempt  at  seduction;  she  wears  boys'  clothes;  she  leaves 
the  court  in  search  of  her  lover;  she  remains  true  to  him  after 
he  has  deserted  her  and  sought  to  kill  her;  she  dies  and  is 
brought  back  to  life  again;  she  passes  through  all  sorts  of  im- 
possible situations  to  final  reconciliation  and  happiness.  In  all 
this  there  is  little  trace  of  an  individual  character;  all  this  can 
be  duplicated  in  the  stories  of  Bellario  and  Arethusa. 

Take,  again,  what  she  says.  Take  for  example,  her  speeches 
in  the  dialogue  with  lachimo:1  read  the  lines  by  themselves — 
"What  makes  your  admiration?"-— "  What  is  the  matter, 
trow?" — "What,  dear  sir,  thus  raps  you,  are  you  well?" — 
"  Continues  well  my  lord?  His  health  beseech  you?" — and 
so  on.  Manifestly,  there  is  no  individuality  there.  What  she 
says  is  suited  admirably  to  the  situation,  but  Bellario,  Are- 

*Act  I,  6,  38-210. 

139 


thusa,  or  any  one  of  half  a  dozen  of  the  romantic  heroine  type 
might  say  it  just  as  well.  Take  again  the  rest  of  her  dialogue 
with  lachimo,  or  with  Pisanio  on  the  way  to  Milford  Haven;1 
or  take  her  soliloquy  on  cruel  fate;2  or  the  one  bemoaning  her 
weakness  and  fatigue;3  or  her  speeches  in  the  final  act;  con- 
sider how  these  speeches  spoken  by  a  boy  actor  would  have 
appealed  to  an  Elizabethan  audience,  and  you  will  see  how 
complete  the  similarity  is  between  these  speeches  and  similar 
matter  in  the  Elizabethan  drama.  They  are  part  and  parcel  of 
the  ordinary  situations  of  the  romantic  drama. 

Moreover,  even  the  intense  sentimentalization  does  not  pro- 
duce consistency.  The  girl  who  makes  some  very  spirited  re- 
plies to  her  father  when  he  interrupts  her  parting  with  her 
lover,4  the  girl  who  declaims  so  oratorically  to  Pisanio  when 
he  delivers  her  lover's  letter,5  the  girl  who  stains  her  face  in 
the  blood  of  her  supposed  lover,6  and  the  girl  who  recovers 
immediately  to  follow  Lucio  as  a  page,7  are  hardly  recognizable 
as  the  same  individual.  Still  further,  it  must  be  noticed  that 
the  character  is  presented  largely  by  means  of  comments  and 
descriptions  on  the  part  of  others.  The  tributes  of  lachimo, 
Posthumus,  Pisanio,  Guiderius,  Arveragus,  do  more  to  create 
our  ideas  of  Imogen's  beauty  of  character  than  anything  she 
does  or  says. 

Perdita  and  Miranda  have  even  less  marks  of  individuality 
than  Imogen.  Mrs.  Jameson  says,  to  be  sure,  that  "Juliet 
herself  is  not  more  firmly  and  distinctly  drawn  than  Perdita. 
The  picture  is  perfectly  finished  at  every  point."  But  when 
one  reads  Juliet's  balcony  speech,  full  of  spontaneous  and  subtle 
revelation  of  character,  and  then  reads  Perdita' s  speech  to 
Florizel,8  one  hardly  knows  what  Mrs.  Jameson  means.  Per- 
dita never  says  anything  which  any  heroine  might  not  say  ex- 
cept this  mixture  of  beautiful  poetry  and  poor  gardening. 

A  further  reading  of  Mrs.  Jameson  and  other  critics  shows 
that  they  gain  their  notions  of  the  beauty  and  grace  of  the 
character  from  what  others  of  the  dramatis  personse  say  about 
her,  and  their  notions  of  her  tenderness  and  delicacy  largely  from 
the  fact  that  she  is  so  often  silent.  The  fact  that  she  says  so  little 
has  given  rise  to  pages  of  ecstasy  over  Shakspere's  subtle  de- 
lineation. In  fine,  she  is  a  conventional  romantic  heroine, 
beautifully  described,  but  she  is  not  a  successful  piece  of  purely 
dramatic  characterization.  Miranda  has  still  less  to  say  or  do 
and  is  consequently  regarded  as  more  ethereally  ideal.  On 
the  stage,  she  must  have  seemed  an  even  less  vital  represent- 
ative of  the  sentimental  type. 

i  Act.  Ill,  3,  23-84.  B ill,  4,  44-108. 

2 1,  6,  1-9.  « IV,  2,330. 

8III,  6,  1-27.  7IV,  2,  367,  seq. 

4 1,  i,  130-150.  8IV,  4,  110-135. 

140 


These  three  heroines,  then,  who  seem  to  many  to  possess  the 
lasting  suggestiveness  of  noble  ideal  conceptions  of  human 
nature,  could  have  appeared  on  the  stage  only  as  ordinary 
heroines.  Idealization  in  poetry  becomes  on  the  stage  mere 
emphasis  and  description  of  the  salient  qualities  of  purity  and 
winsomeness.  On  the  stage,  Shakspere's  heroines  have  few 
traits  to  distinguish  them  from  almost  any  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's.  The  same  beardless  boy  who  one  day  played  Bellario 
might  the  next  day,  without  change  of  make-up,  appear  as  the 
page  Fidele.  Nor  is  the  resemblance  merely  one  of  stage  appear- 
ance. Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  Shakspere  alike  seem  to 
have  sought  to  produce  a  heroine — the  personification  of  ideal 
womanhood,  garnished  with  beautiful  poetry — who  should  fill 
the  requirements  of  the  romantic  situations  which  they  built 
up  out  of  sentimental  love  stories.  Limited  by  the  same  re- 
quirements, their  methods,  too,  were  similar.  In  connection 
with  these  similarities,  it  becomes  important  to  remember  that 
the  sentimentalized  heroine  had  almost  no  part  in  Shakspere's 
plays  during  the  eight  years  from  Twelfth  Night  to  Cymbeline. 

Our  emphasis  on  the  similarities  between  the  heroines  must 
not  be  misinterpreted  to  indicate  a  blindness  to  their  differences. 
They  differ  in  many  ways;  they  differ  just  as  Beaumont's  imagi- 
nation or  Fletcher's  phrasing  differs  from  Shakspere's  imagina- 
tion or  phrasing.  Shakspere's  imagination,  for  example,  does 
not  delight  to  linger  over  the  theme  of  unrequited  love  to  the 
extent  that  Beaumont's  did.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  again, 
fail  to  suggest  by  their  phrasing  the  delicacy  of  sentiment  with 
which  Shakspere's  heroines  are  dressed.  We  must  not  forget, 
either,  that  there  are  many  heroines  of  this  general  type  in  the 
Elizabethan  drama  and  that  there  were  some  on  the  stage  be- 
fore Shakspere  had  established  himself  as  a  dramatist  or  Beau- 
mont had  been  sent  to  school. 

This  type,  however,  plays  little  part  in  the  drama  for  six  or 
seven  years  before  the  probable  date  of  Philaster  and  little  part 
in  Shakspere's  plays  from  Twelfth  Night  to  the  romances.  Two 
facts  are  very  significant — a  sentimentalized  heroine  plays 
an  important  role  in  each  of  the  Beaumont- Fletcher  romances 
and  a  sentimentalized  heroine  likewise  has  an  important  part 
in  each  of  Shakspere's  romances.  While  Shakspere  trans- 
formed her  into  a  beautiful  idealized  being,  characteristically 
his  own;  on  analysis  as  a  stage  personage,  she  still  presents 
the  characteristics  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  ideal  maidens. 
To  put  the  case  boldly,  even  Imogen  is  no  other  than  Bellario 
plus  Shakspere's  poetry.  _ 

There  are  other  characters,  too,   in  Shakspere's  romances  / 
who  show  resemblances  to  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  stock  types. 
Thus  the  wicked  queen  in  Cymbeline  is  very  like  the  wicked 
queens  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.     The  faithful  counsellors, 

141 


Gonzalo,  Camillo,  and  the  faithful  servant  Pisanio  supply  the 
place  on  the  stage  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  faithful  friends. 
The  king  in  Cymbeline  has  a  close  likeness  to  the  king  in 
Philaster;  and  the  king  in  the  Winter's  Tale,  something  of  the 
royal  fury  of  Arbaces  in  A  King  and  No  King. 

Exact  resemblances  are  not  at  all  to  be  expected;  but  a 
summary  of  the  characters  of  the  romances  shows  that  Shak- 
spere,  like  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  used  only  a  few  fairly  con- 
ventionalized types.  The  heroines  are  all  of  one  piece,  the 
villains  are  of  one  piece;  the  heroes  can  hardly  be  distinguished 
from  each  other  except  that  Posthumus  has  much  more  to  do; 
the  aged  counsellors  appear  in  two  plays:  and  these  types  in- 
clude about  all  the  principal  characters.  To  see  how  great  a 
change  these  types  indicate  in  Shakspere's  method  of  charac- 
terization, we  have  only  to  remember  that  within  two  years 
before  the  time  when  he  probably  wrote  Cymbeline,  he  was 
probably  writing  Antony  and  Cleopatra. 

On  the  whole,  then,  the  characterization  of  the  romances 
shows  little  of  the  immense  creative  power  that  distinguishes 
Shakspere's  work  from  Romeo  and  Juliet  through  Antony  and 
Cleopatra.  The  characters,  on  the  contrary,  are  in  the  main 
only  such  conventional  types  as  the  romantic  situations  demand. 
That  this  change  was  conscious  cannot,  of  course,  be  asserted; 
but  that  it  had  its  cause  in  the  immediate  demand  of  the  Lon- 
don stage,  seems  in  every  way  probable.  It  is,  at  least,  in 
harmony  with  the  supposition  that  in  his  effort  to  produce 
plays  with  varied  and  intense  situations,  and  with  tragic  and 
idyllic  contrasts,  culminating  in  elaborate  denouements,  Shak- 
spere  followed  so  closely  the  style  of  play  which  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  had  made  popular  that,  consciously  or  unconsciously, 
he  adopted  their  methods  of  characterization  and  even  made 
some  use  of  their  conventionalized  types. 

C.     Style. 

The  romances  differ  from  the  rest  of  Shakspere's  plays  not 
only  in  plots  and  characters  but  also  in  versification.  Up  to 
Cymbeline,  the  development  of  Shakspere's  versification  is 
regular  enough;  the  increase  in  unstopt  lines  and  feminine 
endings  and  the  decrease  of  rhyme,  mark  a  gradual  develop- 
ment in  freedom  of  versification  with  a  constant  increase  in 
mastery.  In  comparison,  however,  with  the  splendid  phrasing 
of  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  Cymbeline  shows  a  puzzling  deca- 
dence; nor  can  its  characteristic  traits  readily  be  explained 
merely  as  a  stage  in  the  development  discoverable  in  Shakspere 
and  in  Elizabethan  dramatic  versification  in  general.  An  ex- 
amination of  these  structural  traits,  which  are  also  manifest  in 
the  Winter*  s  Tale  and  the  Tempest,  is  necessary  in  order  to 
distinguish  the  style  from  that  of  the  preceding  plays  and  is 

142 


of  interest  in  connection  with  the  contemporary  versification 
of  Fletcher. 

In  the  first  place,  we  find  an  increase  in  the  proportion  of 
double  endings.  In  addition  there  seems  to  be  a  constant  de- 
liberate effort  to  conceal  the  metre.  The  rhythm  is  often 
hardly  discernible  until  we  piece  together  the  broken  lines, 
count  the  syllables,  and  place  the  accents.  The  verse  con-j 
stantly  borders  on  prose. 

In  the  second  place,  the  end-stopt  line  is  often  carefully 
avoided;  there  being,  in  point  of  fact,  two  unstopt  for  every 
five  end-stopt  lines.  Here,  Shakspere's  practice  differs  de- 
cidedly from  Fletcher's,  but  in  one  particular  the  effect  is  much 
the  same.  Shakspere's  verse,  like  Fletcher's,  clearly  tends  to  ' 
imitate  the  natural,  unpremeditated  manner  of  ordinary  speech; 
and  in  attaining  this  effect,  the  broken  phrases,  avoiding  the 
strict  metrical  limitations  of  lines  and  syllables,  largely  con- 
tribute. The  unstopt  lines,  like  Fletcher's  stopt  lines,  imitate 
the  discontinuity  of  actual  speech.  Fletcher  wrote  in  discon- 
nected lines;  Shakspere  in  disconnected  phrases. 

Other  than  this,  their  technical  methods  are  similar.  Shak- 
spere's use  of  unstopt  lines  involves  a  use  of  weak  and  light 
endings,  but  his  structure  in  general  is  like  Fletcher's.  It  is 
never  periodic.  On  the  contrary,  the  speakers  repeat  them- 
selves, break  off  abruptly,  correct  themselves,  and  add  apparent 
after-thoughts.  The  speeches  of  the  actors  seem  suggested 
by  the  action  of  the  moment  and  are  almost  necessarily  accom- 
panied by  action.  One  image  is  never  fully  developed,  nor 
are  set  descriptions  indulged  in  as  in  the  early  plays;  but  image 
is  piled  upon  image  as  if  one  suggested  another.  As  Mr.  l 
Macaulay  says:  "  Point  is  added  to  point,  each  one  as  it  comes 
being  apparently  suggested  by  that  which  has  preceded  it. 
.  .  .  .  the  whole  conveying  the  impression  of  thoughts 
uttered  as  they  passed  through  the  mind  rather  than  of  any 
elaborate  composition." 

Important  in  producing  this  loose  structure  and  of  itself  one 
of  the  most  distinguishing  traits  of  Shakspere's  late  verse,  is 
his  use  of  parentheses.  Sometimes  the  parenthetical  structure  - 
is  used  to  such  a  degree  that  the  meaning  is  almost  unintelli- 
gible; it  usually  requires  the  assistance  of  gesture  and  skillful 
elocution.  Even  bits  of  operatic  convention  take  on  this  form, 
as  Pisanio's  comment  on  Imogen's  change  of  clothing.1  Pa- 
rentheses serve  also  to  break  the  declamatory  monotony  of  the 
early  style,  as  in  Hermione's  great  speech.2  They  are  most 
often  used,  however,  in  cases  where  violent  passions  demand 
confused,  ejaculatory  speech.  Take,  for  example,  Imogen's 

1  Cymbeline,  III,  4,  156-168. 

2  Winter's  Tale,  III,  2,  92-117. 

143 


speech  on  receiving  Posthumus'  letter,1  or  her  dialogue  with 
Pisanio,2  or  Leontes'  wild  outbreak  of  jealousy,3  or  his  speech 
to  Camillo,4  or  his  speech  to  Antigonous.5  All  these  examples 
indicate  how  well  the  parenthetical  structure  is  adapted  to  stage 
action. 

These  examples,  which  may  be  multiplied  almost  at  random, 
also  illustrate  the  other  traits  of  style  which  have  been  men- 
tioned and  which  are,  indeed,  generally  recognized  as  charac- 
teristic of  Shakspere's  late  style.  Another  trait  which  seems 
to  me  especially  characteristic  of  the  romances  is  the  frequent 
use  of  colloquialisms,  as  'he's'  for  'he  is,'  "tis'  for  'it  is,'  'I'll' 
for  'I  will,'  and  so  on.6  While  not  of  much  importance  of 
itself,  this  trait  of  phrasing  resembles  the  more  important  traits 
of  structure  in  the  evident  imitation  of  natural  speech. 

All  these  traits  of  the  late  style  seem  aimed  at  producing 
an  effect  of  natural  and  unpremeditated  speech  which  should 
lend  itself  readily  to  action;  yet,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  one  of 
the  most  noticeable  results  of  these  changes  is  the  obscurity  of 
the  verse.  This  is  due  partly  to  the  extreme  to  which  the 
broken  sentence  structure  is  carried,  and  partly  to  the  over- 
burdening of  the  verse  with  thought,  and  partly  to  the  inten- 
sity and  rapidity  of  Shakspere's  imagination.  In  avoiding  set 
descriptions  he  heaps  metaphor  upon  metaphor,  and  as  a  result 
gains  a  brevity  which  is  forcible  but  by  no  means  clear. 

In  this  intensity  and  rapidity  of  imagination  lies  a  funda- 
1  mental  difference  between  his  verse  and  Fletcher's.  As  Charles 
Lamb7  says,  "  (Fletcher)  lays  line  upon  line,  making  up  one 
after  the  other,  adding  image  to  image  so  deliberately  that  we 
may  see  where  they  join.  Shakspere  mingles  everything;  he 
runs  line  into  line,  embarrasses  sentences  and  metaphors;  before 
one  idea  has  burst  its  shell,  another  is  hatched  and  clamorous 
for  disclosure."  Fletcher  was  not  troubled  with  complexity 
of  thought  or  exuberance  of  imagination  to  such  an  extent 
that  he  had  difficulty  in  fitting  them  for  stage  utterance;  in 

*Cymb.,  Ill,  2,53-61. 
*Cymb.,  Ill,  4,  72-85,  104-109. 
*W.  T.,  I,  2,  185,  seq. 
*W.  T.  I,  2,  267,  seq. 
*W.  T.  11,3,  154-162. 

6  An  examination  of  the  first  acts  of  Merchant  of  Venice,  Antony 
and  Cleopatra,  and  the  Winter's  Tale  shows  the  number  of  abbrevia- 
tions to  be  16,  49,  and  89,  respectively.     In  the  case  of  's  for  is,  I'll  for 
I  will,  'tis  for  it  is,   '11  for  will,  the  ratios  of  the  abbreviated  forms 
to   the    total    number   of    abbreviated   and    unabbreviated   were    .28, 
.61,  and  .74,  respectively.     This  furnishes  some  evidence  that  Shak- 
spere's increase  in  the  use  of  colloquialisms  was  marked  in  his  latest 
period.     A  similar  examination  of  several  acts  in   Fletcher's  plays  in- 
dicates that    his    preference    for    similar    abbreviations  was  equally 
marked. 

7  Lamb's  Specimens  of  Dramatists.     Second  Edition,     p.  419. 

144 


his  late  period,  at  any  rate,  Shakspere  undoubtedly  was.     To 
this  is  due  in  part  the  difference  in  the  general  impression  re-  , 
ceived  from  their  styles.     In  total  effect  they  are  very  unlike. 

In  comparing  versifications,  however,  habits  of  thought  or 
imagination  may  well  be  left  out  of  consideration;  we  must 
confine  ourselves  to  resemblance  in  structure.  In  his  greater 
use  of  run-over  lines  and  in  his  more  moderate  use  of  double 
endings,  as  well  as  in  traits  of  his  imagery  and  phrasing,  Shak- 
spere's  verse  is  readily  distinguished  from  Fletcher's;  but  in 
other  technical  qualities,  its  resemblance  is  worth  noting. 
Shakspere  uses  feminine  endings  more  frequently  than  before,  : 
he  is  at  pains  to  conceal  the  metre,  he  writes  in  disconnected 
phrases,  he  avoids  carefully  elaborated  images,  he  uses  paren- 
theses to  an  extraordinary  degree,  he  uses  colloquialisms  with 
frequency.  In  all  these  respects  he  seems,  like  Fletcher,  to 
have  been  imitating  the  unpremeditated,  disjointed  utterance 
which  is  best  suited  to  stage  action. 

It  is  in  these  structural  changes,  also,  that  the  verse  is  dis- 
tinguished from  that  of  the  earlier  plays.  How  complete  its 
departure  is  from  the  old  lyric  style  can  at  once  be  seen  by 
comparing  it  with  the  first  act  of  so  late  a  play  as  Lear.  How 
marked  is  the  structural  transformation  can  be  seen  by  referring 
to  the  still  later  play  of  Antony  and  Cleopatra.  A  comparison 
of  this  last  play  with  Cymbeline  also  reveals  a  decided  loss  of 
mastery,  an  apparently  conscious  and  not  quite  successful 
struggle  to  overcome  the  difficulties  of  the  new  structure. 
More  than  in  the  case  of  any  of  the  other  traits  of  the  romances, 
one  is  tempted  to  suggest  that  the  versification,  particularly  in 
Cymbeline,  indicates  effort  and  deliberation. 

The  cause  of  this  effort  may  be  sought  in  various  directions. 
The  structural  peculiarities  may  have  been  the  outcome,  con- 
scious or  unconscious,  of  the  new  style  of  play  and  of  the  ac- 
companying mood.  The  general  progress  of  Shakspere' s  style 
toward  freedom  in  metre  and  structure  must  be  given  some 
share  in  the  production  of  the  style  of  the  late  plays.  Our 
examination  of  the  traits  of  the  style  does,  however,  emphasize 
the  important  influence  of  another  factor.  It  does  not  indicate 
that  there  was  any  direct  imitation  of  Fletcher,  even  in  the 
structural  peculiarities.  The  resemblances  in  structure  between 
the  two  styles  were  probably  not  related  as  cause  and  effect, 
but  were  the  results  of  similar  dramatic  conditions  and  similar 
plays.  Shakspere  does  seem  to  have  used  means  similar  to 
those  used  by  Fletcher,  because  he  was  trying  as  Fletcher 
was  to  suit  his  verse  to  stage  action.  This  effort  to  imitate 
unpremeditated,  disconnected,  natural  speech  seems,  in  fact, 
sufficient  to  account  for  all  the  marked  variations  in  structure 
which  Cymbeline  presents  in  comparison  with  earlier  plays. 


D.     Stage  Effects. 

In  considering  the  plots,  characters,  and  style  of  the  romances 
we  have  reached  the  conclusion  that  all  the  traits  which  dis- 
j  tinguish  them  from  Shakspere's  other  plays  show  a  common 
Uendency  to  secure  greater  stage-effectiveness.  In  face  of  the 
fact  that  the  romances  have  not  since  the  Restoration  proved 
very  effective  acting  plays,  this  conclusion  may  still  seem  ques- 
tionable. In  the  first  place,  it  must  be  remembered,  both 
Shakspere's  and  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  romances  lack  the 
unity  of  construction  and  still  more  the  verisimilitude  demanded 
by  modern  audiences.  Further,  it  may  be  repeated,  Shakspere's 
romances  do  not  show  anything  like  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
cleverness  in  constructing  startling  situations  and  plots.  As 
Elizabethan  plays,  however,  as  series  of  entertaining  situations 
and  elaborate  climaxes,  they  must  have  ministered  to  the  same 
taste  as  the  Beaumont- Fletcher  romances. 

p  Apart  from  regular  dramatic  methods,  there  are  still  further 
evidences  of  efforts  for  stage  success  which  appeal  even  less  to 
modern  taste.  The  extraordinary  variety  of  situations  in  Cym- 
beline1  was  perhaps  sufficient,  but  in  the  Winter's  Tale  there 
are  additional  devices.  There  is  the  bear  which  chases  Antig- 
onous  off  the  stage  during  the  storm,2  there  is  the  antick  dance 
by  the  twelve  satyrs,8  the  graceful  dance  of  shepherds  and 
shepherdesses,4  the  change  of  clothes,  which  may  easily  have 
afforded  a  good  piece  of  comic  business,5  and,  finally,  there  is 
the  transformation  of  the  statue  to  life.6  No  dramatist  intro- 
duced any  of  these  into  his  play  without  a  deliberate  effort  for 
stage  effect.  The  day  of  warring  armies  and  revengeful  ghosts 
was  passing,  but  the  audiences'  craving  for  novelty  was  un- 
ceasing, and  it  is  amply  cared  for  both  here  and  in  the  Tempest. 
(The  Tempest,  to  us  a  beautiful  poem  full  of  beneficent  ideal- 
ism, on  the  Elizabethan  stage  must  have  seemed  largely  an 
effort  to  satisfy  this  craving.  Caliban,  that  immensely  taking 
Elizabethan  stage-beast,  who  has  proved  so  prophetically  philo- 
sophical, must  have  been  the  hit  of  the  play.  Then  there  was 
the  old  device  borrowed  from  the  Midsummer  Night's  Dream 
of  the  invisible  Ariel  bewildering  the  courtiers,7  and  the  still 
older  business  of  the  vanishing  banquet,  "accomplished  with 

1The  curious  spectacle  of  Jupiter  and  the  ghosts  in  Posthumus' 
dream  (V,  4)  must  not  be  overlooked. 

2  III,  3.     See  note,  p.  34,  ante. 

8 IV,  4,  352.  See  p.  32.  Compare  with  the  dance  of  Indians  in  the 
Four  Plays. 

4 IV,  4,  165. 

•IV,  4,  640-670. 

6  V,  3.     For  a  transformation  of  a  statue  to  life,  see  Ivyly's  Gallathea. 
For  use  of  statues  in  court  masques,  see  the  Masque  of  the  Inner 
Temple,  etc.  (1613),  and  the  Golden  Age  Restored  (1616). 

7  III,  3- 

146 


a  quaint  device."1  Then  there  were  the  drunken  scenes, 
such  as  Shakspere  had  used  before,  but  now  made  especially 
diverting  when  the  climax  was  reached  and  the  dogs  chased 
the  drenched  and  filthy  boors  about  the  stage  while  Prospero 
and  Ariel  cried  on  quarry!  Prospero  himself,  with  his  magi- 
cian's robes  and  wand,  must  have  made  an  imposing  spec- 
tacular figure. 

Prospero  and  Ariel  are,  indeed,  proper  figures  for  a  court 
masque,  and  the  "strange  Shapes,"  like  the  satyrs  in  the 
Winter's  Tale,  are  nothing  more  nor  less  than  an  anti-masque. 
Note,  for  proof  the  stage  directions  : 

III,  3.  "  Enter  several  strange  Shapes,  bringing  in  a  banquet  ;  they 
dance  about  it  with  gentle  actions  of  salutation  ;  and,  inviting  the 
king,  etc.,  to  eat,  they  depart." 

Again,  a  little  later,  after  Ariel  in  the  form  of  a  harpy  has 
vanished  in  thunder: 

III,  3,  82.    —  "  then,  to  soft  music,  enter  the  Shapes  again,  and  dance 
with  mocks  and  mows,  and  carrying  out  the  table." 

Still  again  — 

IV,  i.     "A  noise  of  hunters  heard.     Enter  divers  Spirits,  in  shape 
of  dogs  and  hounds,"  etc. 

The  anti-masques  at  the  court  often  appeared  in  shape  of 
animals,  as  goats  (Honour  of  Wales,  1619)  and  bears  (Augurs, 
1622)  and  monkeys  (Middle  Temple  and  Lincoln's  Inn,  1613). 

These  grotesque  spirits,  then,  in  shape  of  dogs,  and,  earlier, 
with  their  dancing  and  mocks  and  mows,  must,  just  as  certainly 
as  the  masque  proper  in  the  fourth  act,  have  been  suggested 
by  the  court  masques.  The  antic  dances  and  performance  of 
the  Shapes,_to^tjie£wjjlQSe"5evices  oi*  Prospero  and  Ariel, 
maFeTin  fact,  an  unmistakable  masque-setting  for  themasque 
proper  with  its  goddesses  and  graceful  dance  of  nytnphs  and  ^ 
reapers.  2 

Thus  in  the  Tempest  Shakspere  was  combining  the  construc- 
tion, pageantry,  and  devices  of  the  court  masque,  just  as  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher  did  in  the  Four  Plays.  It  is  interesting  to 
note,  by  the  way,  that  Shakspere  combined  his  masque-material 
with  his  play  much  more  skillfully  than  any  of  his  contempo- 
raries. Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  Four  Plays  is  a  rare  instance 
of  a  similar  attempt  to  unite  the  diverse  elements.  Usually, 
the  anti  -masque  or  the  spectacle  or  the  masque  proper  is 
dragged  into  the  play.  In  the  Tempest,  however,  the  strange 
shapes  and  the  goddesses  suit  the  atmosphere  of  the  enchanted 


3. 

2IV,  i,  138.  "Enter  certain  Reapers,  properly  habited;  they  join 
with  the  Nymphs  in  a  graceful  dance  ;  towards  the  end  whereof  Pros- 
pero starts  suddenly  and  speaks  ;  after  which,  to  a  strange,  hollow, 
and  confused  noise,  they  heavily  vanish." 

147 


island  and   play  a  natural  part  in  the   magic  of  Ariel  and 
Prospero. 

Very  distinctly,  then,  in  the  Tempest,  and  at  least  in  the  dance 
of  shepherds  and  anti-masque  of  satyrs  in  the  Winter' s  Tale, 
Shakspere  was  adding  to  the  attractiveness  of  his  plays  by 
tfce  introduction  of  a  good  deal  of  pageantry  after  the  style 
of  the  court  masques.  This  fashion  of  imitating  the  court 
masques  was  certainly  a  new  one  at  the  time,  and  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  were  leaders  in  it.  Shakspere  also  seems  to 
have  been  regarded  as  a  leader  and  prominent  offender  by 
Ben  Jonson,  for  in  protesting  against  the  "jigs  and  dances" 
he  especially  mentions  "those  that  beget  tales,  tempests  and 
such  like  drolleries. ' '  1  Our  chronology  of  the  plays  indicates 
that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  preceded  Shakspere  in  the  imita- 
tion of  the  court  masque,  but  the  question  of  precedence  cannot 
be  certainly  settled  nor  is  it  very  important.  The  development 
of  the  court  masque  in  the  reign  of  James  I  must  inevitably 
have  been  followed  by  an  adoption  of  some  of  its  important 
and  novel  features  on  the  public  stage.  Shakspere  was  a  leader 
in  the  same  fashion  in  which  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were 
leaders  and  was  playing  to  the  same  taste  to  which  they 
played. 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  the  stage  pageantry  of  Shak- 
spere's  plays,  we  must  note  that  it  is  especially  abundant  in 
the  two  plays  in  which  he  probably  collaborated  with  Fletcher. 
Henry  VIII,  according  to  Sir  Henry  Wotton ,  ' '  was  set  forth 
with  many  extraordinary  circumstances  of  pomp  and  majesty, ' ' 
and  the  stage  directions  amply  testify  to  the  fact.  The  trial 
scene,  the  coronation,  and  the  christening  make  the  play  a 
succession  of  pageants,  and  in  addition  there  are  noticeable 
masque  elements.  In  Act  V,  scene  4,  there  is  the  porter's 
scene  with  the  satire  on  the  crowds  that  thronged  to  masques 
and  pageants,  like  similar  scenes  in  the  Four  Plays 8  and  the 
Maid' s  Tragedy*  In  Act  I,  scene  4,  there  is  the  masque  at 
Wolsey's  with  the  king  and  others  disguised  as  shepherds. 
Again,  in  the  vision  which  appears  to  Katharine,  there  is  a 
spectacle  and  dance  decidedly  like  those  of  the  court  masques.  6 

1  Bartholomew  Fair.     Induction,  (acted  1614). 

2  See  p.  37,  ante. 
Induction. 

4I,  2. 

5 IV,  2,  80.  "Sad  and  solemn  music."  Then  after  line  82:  "The 
vision.  Enter,  solemnly  tripping  one  after  another,  six  personages, 
clad  in  white  robes,  wearing  on  their  heads  garlands  of  bays,  and. 
golden  vizards  on  their  faces  ;  branches  of  bays  or  palm  in  their  hands. 
They  first  congee  unto  her,  then  dance;  and,  at  certain  changes,  the 
first  two  hold  a  spare  garland  over  her  head  ;  at  which  the  other  four 
make  reverent  curtsies  ....  and  so  in  their  dancing  vanish, 
carrying  their  garland  with  them.  The  music  continues." 

148 


These  last  two  masques  or  dances  occur  in  scenes  by  Fletcher, 
but  we  can't  be  quite  safe  in  concluding  that  he  devised  them, 
although  this  is  very  probable. 

In  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen,  apart  from  the  pageantry  of  the 
"  funeral  solemnity  "  1  and  of  the  prayers  in  the  temple,'2  we 
have  a  masque  and  an  anti-masque.  The  wedding  masque 3 
is  in  the  approved  form  and  the  anti-masque,4  as  we  have  seen, 
is  borrowed  from  the  court  Masque  of  the  Inner  Temple.  With 
the  addition  of  some  action,  this  forms  a  whole  scene  repre- 
senting a  performance  by  some  country  folk  before  Theseus. 

In  these  two  plays  we  thus  have  additional  evidence  of 
Fletcher's  use  of  the  court  masques  in  stage  plays,  and  also 
additional  evidence  that  Shakspere  was  trying  to  satisfy  the 
taste  for  stage  pageantry. 

E.     Summary. 

The  results  of  our  investigation  up  to  this  point  may  be 
briefly  summarized.  The  three  romances  by  Shakspere  show 
many  common  traits  and  a  marked  divergence  from  his  plays 
of  the  preceding  eight  years.  While  in  a  few  particulars  they 
resemble  the  earlier  comedies,  they  stand  together  and  form  a 
new  style  of  drama.  The  relation  of  each  play  to  the  general 
type,  its  resemblances  and  variations,  have  been  left  to  suc- 
ceeding chapters.  So  far  we  have  dwelt  mainly  on  common 
traits  and  common  divergences  from  the  preceding  plays. 

To  emphasize  this  divergence  reference  may  be  profitably 
made  to  Coleridge's  discussion  of  the  qualities  which  distinguish 
Shakspere  from  all  other  dramatists.  Among  the  seven  char-  "\ 
acteristics  enumerated  are  the  following  four  :  ' '  expectation  in 
preference  to  surprise;  "  ' '  independence  of  the  dramatic  interest 
in  the  plot;"  "independence  of  the  dramatic  interest  in  the 
story  as  the  ground  of  the  plot;"  "the  characters  of  the 
dramatis  personse  like  those  in  real  life  are  to  be  inferred 
by  the  reader,  they  are  not  told  to  him. ' '  These  four  charac- 
teristics are  certainly  manifest  in  most  of  Shakspere' s  plays, 
especially  in  the  tragedies  which  preceded  the  romances;  in 
the  romances,  however,  no  one  of  them  holds  with  any  exact- 
ness. In  fact  the  reverse  of  each  seems  generally  a  noticeable  j 
trait. 

In  our  analysis  we  have  found  varied  and  ingenious  plots, 
tragic  and  idyllic  scenes  furnishing  emotional  variety  and  con- 
trast, telling  situations,  emphasized  denouements,  characteri- 

'1,5. 

2V,  3. 

8 1,  i.  (Shakspere's  part.) 

4  III,  5,  by  Fletcher. 

5  Characteristics  of  Shakspere' s  Drama.     Complete  works  of  Cole- 
ridge.   Ed.  Professor  Shedd.  New  York,  1854,  yvols.    Vol.  4,  p.  61,  seq. 

149 


zation  sacrificed  to  convention  and  situation,  a  versification 
perceptibly  designed  for  stage  effect,  and  considerable  pageantry 
taken  from  the  court  masques.  In  all  these,  and  in  more  spe- 
cific ways  as  well,  the  romances  not  only  differ  from  Shak- 
spere's  preceding  work,  they  resemble  the  contemporary 
romances  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

Moreover,  we  have  found  from  an  examination  of  all  the 
plays  acted  1601-1611  that  there  are  none  by  other  authors 
which  offer  marked  resemblances  to  those  by  either  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  or  Shakspere.  Not  only  is  there  no  play  by  an- 
other author  which  possesses  in  any  considerable  degree  the 
characteristics  of  either  set  of  romances;  there  are  few  plays 
which  offer  any  resemblances.  Among  the  plays  from  1601- 
1611  there  are  few  romantic  plots,  almost  no  tragi-comedies, 
little  emphasis  of  sentimental  heroines,  few  idyllic  scenes,  no 
full-fledged  imitations  of  court  masques.  There  is,  in  short, 
no  indication  of  a  revival  of  romance,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
formation  of  a  new  type  of  romantic  tragedies  and  tragi-come- 
dies. 

Shakspere' s  romances  seem  not  only  unlike  his  own  preceding 
plays  but  also  unlike  any  contemporary  plays  except  those  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  When  we  remember  that  Shakspere's 
change  from  historical  tragedy  to  romance  was  very  abrupt, 
that  it  was  almost  exactly  contemporaneous  with  the  success 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  romances,  that  Shakspere  and 
Fletcher  wrote  two  plays  together  for  the  King's  men.  and  that 
three  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  romances  were  acted  by  the 
same  theatrical  company  as  Shakspere's,  then  the  resemblances 
between  the  two  sets  of  plays  become  very  significant.  So 
strong  do  they  seem  that  we  must  conclude  there  was  consider- 
able indebtedness  from  one  to  the  other.  The  co-existence  of 
two  sets  of  romances  closely  resembling  each  other  has  been 
established,  and  a  study  of  contemporary  drama  indicates  that 
the  only  possible  explanation  is  that  of  mutual  influence. 

The  question  of  which  group  influenced  the  other  remains 
to  be  considered.  So  far  we  have  been  discussing  resemblances 
without  dwelling  on  questions  of  which  was  cause  and  which 
effect.  Some  light,  however,  has  been  thrown  on  these  ques- 
r  tions.  In  some  particulars  there  seems  no  way  of  determining 
the  cause,  and  in  some  no  reason  to  suppose  that  there  was 
any  definite  relation  of  cause  and  effect.  Common  traits  in 
versification,  for  example,  cannot  be  held  to  show  direct  imita- 
tion; at  the  most  they  indicate  only  a  common  purpose.  Re- 
semblances in  stage  pageantry  likewise  merely  indicate  that  each 
was  securing  similar  effects  by  similar  means.  While  in  the 
absence  of  a  certain  chronology  it  is  impossible  to  say  who  was 
the  innovator  in  this  respect,  we  can  assert  that  there  may 
have  been  conscious  rivalry  and  that  there  must  have  been 


conscious  effort  to  meet  the  same  stage  demand.  In  other 
traits,  like  the  material  of  the  plots,  the  emphasis  placed  on  a 
surprising  denouement,  the  sentimental  heroines,  we  find  reason 
to  expect  more  definite  indebtedness.  Questions  of  indebted- 
ness must,  in  fact,  include  methods  of  construction  and  charac- 
terization and  all  the  defining  characteristics  of  the  romance 
type. 

Before  considering  this  whole  question  of  mutual  influence 
we  may  best  turn  to  an  examination  of  some  further  resem- 
blances between  typical  representatives  of  either  class — Cym- 
beline  and  Philaster. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

CYMBELINE  AND  PHILASTER. 

Cymbeline  is  generally  considered  the  earliest  of  the  romances. 
In  Cymbeline,  then,  if  anywhere,  we  may  expect  to  find  specific 
traces  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  romances.  A  study  of  Shak- 
spere's  plays  after  his  earliest  period  does  not  lead  us  to  expect 
to  find  Shakspere  absolutely  imitating;  but  it  does  show  that 
he  was  constantly  influenced  by  dramatic  conditions  and  fash- 
ions and  that  he  was  using  and  perfecting  dramatic  types  which 
other  men  had  originated.  In  the  first  play  in  which,  if  our 
hypothesis  be  true,  he  adapted  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  type, 
there  ought  to  be  some  definite  resemblances  to  the  original. 
Such  resemblances  may  be  found  between  Cymbeline  and  Phil- 
aster. 

The  majority  of  these  have  already  been  discussed  by  Dr. 
B.  Leonhardt  in  an  article  on  the  relations  of  Philaster  to 
Hamlet  and  Cymbeline?  He  is  so  impressed  with  the  many 
resemblances  between  Philaster  and  Cymbeline  that  he  thinks 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  used  the  Cloten- Imogen  plot.  Further, 
he  takes  1 608  as  the  date  of  Philaster  and  is  therefore  moved 
to  suggest  in  a  foot-note  that  Cymbeline  was  written  before 
1608.  The  idea  that  Shakspere  could  have  imitated  or  adapted 
any  one's  work  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  him. 

In  comparing  the  two  plays,  it  iriust  be  remembered  that 
many  resemblances  have  been  instanced  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ters. All  that  has  been  said  of  the  romances  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  applies  to  Philaster,  and  all  that  has  been  said  of 
the  romances  of  Shakspere  applies  with  especial  force  to  Cym- 
beline. Here  we  are  to  look  for  more  specific  resemblances 
and  we  will  begin,  as  usual,  with  the  plots.  The  historical 
narrative  and  the  Italian  expedition  of  Posthumus  have  no 
>  parallels  in  Philaster,  and  most  of  the  Megra  affair  and  the 
rising  of  the  mob  in  Philaster  have  no  parallels  in  Cymbeline. 
In  the  main,  however,  the  plc>£s_are ^strikingly  similar. 

^  Anglia,  Vol.  8,  p.  424.  Uber  Beziehungen  von  Beaumont  und 
Fletcher's  Philaster,  or  Love  Lies-a-Bleeding  zu  Shakespeare's  Hamlet 
und  Cymbeline.  B.  Leonhardt,  1885.  The  resemblances,  to  Hamlet 
have  been  frequently  noticed  and  may  be  due  to  a  conscious  imitation 
of  that  play.  The  resemblance,  however,  arises  mainly  from  the  use 
of  the  common  motive  of  'revenge  for  a  father;'  and  the  frequent 
burlesque  of  Hamlet  in  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  plays  counts  against 
the  likelihood  of  conscious  imitation. 

152 


Imogen,  heiress  to  the  throne,  is  destined  by  her  royal 
father  to  marry  his  boorish  step-son,  Cloten  ;  but  she  is  wedded 
to  a  noble  youth,  Leonatus  Posthumus.1  Arethusa,  only  daugh- 
ter of  the  King  of  Calabria,  is  likewise  destined  by  her  father 
to  marry  the  boorish  Spanish  prince,  Pharamond,  but  she  is  in 
love  with  Philaster  the  rightful  heir.3  Leonatus  is  favorably 
contrasted  by  the  courtiers  with  Cloten,8  and  so  Philaster  is 
contrasted  with  Pharamond.4  Both  Leonatus6  and  Philaster8 
are  driven  from  court  by  the  royal  fathers.  As  he  is  leaving 
Arethusa'  s  apartments,  Philaster  has  an  encounter  with  Phara- 
mond,7 and  as  Leonatus  is  leaving  Imogen,  he  has  an  encounter 
with  Cloten.8  In  the  absence  of  Leonatus,  lachimo  tries  to 
seduce  Imogen,9  and  Pharamond  makes  similar  proposals  to 
Arethusa.10  Both  are  repulsed.  lachimo  slanders  Imogen 
to  Leonatus,11  and  Arethusa  is  falsely  accused  to  Philaster  by 
Dion.12  Imogen  is  brought  to  despair  by  Leonatus'  letter 
charging  her  with  unfaithfulness,18  and  Arethusa  is  likewise 
in  anguish  when  similarly  upbraided  to  the  face  by  Philaster.14 
Kach  lover  has  a  passionate  soliloquy  in  which  he  denounces 
his  mistress  and  all  woman-kind.15  lc  Imogen  leaves  the  court 
in  disguise  to  seek  Leonatus  and,  after  dismissing  Pisanio,  loses 
her  way  ;  17  and  Arethusa  parts  from  the  hunting  party  to  wander 

"O'er  mountains,  through  brambles,  pits,  and  floods."18 

Both,  because  falsely  slandered,  wish  to  die.19  20  Each  king 
is  very  much  disturbed  at  his  daughter's  absence.21  22  Cym- 
beline  accuses  Pisanio  of  knowing  where  she  is,28  and  so  Cala- 
bria accuses  Dion.24  Arethusa  is  wounded  by  Philaster,25  and 
Imogen  is  struck  down  by  Leonatus.26  Finally  the  disentangle- 
ments  of  the  two  plots  are  made  in  similar  ways.  In  Philaster, 
Bellario  explains  that  in  spite  of  her  page's  clothes  she  is  a 
woman,  and  Megra  confesses  that  she  has  falsely  slandered 
Arethusa.27  In  Cymbeline,  Imogen  explains  and  lachimo  con- 
fesses.28 In  Philaster,  all  are  forgiven,  even  Megra  and  Phara- 
mond,29 so  in  Cymbeline  lachimo  isjpardoned;80  and  in  each 
play  the  lovers  are  Jiappily  ^ti-mterijimW  the  king's  favor. 


1  Cymb.,  I,  i.  ™PhiL,  Ill,  2. 

*Phil.,  I,  i.  ™Cymb.,  Ill,  6. 

8  Cymb.,  I,  i.  18  Phil.,  IV,  3. 

4  /%*/.,  I,  i.  ^Cymb.,  Ill,  4,  75-95  :  IV,  2,  15. 

*Cymb.,  I,  i,  120-130.  *Phil.,  Ill,  2:  IV,  3. 

•Phil.,  I,  i.  *Cymb.,  Ill,  5,  28-52. 

I  Phil.,  I,  2.  22  Phil.,  IV,  2. 
*Cymb.,  I,  2.  ^Cymb.,  IV,  3,  1-12. 
*Cymb.,  1,6.  »  Phil.,  IV,  2. 

10  Phil.,  I,  2.  <B  /%*'/.,  IV,  3. 

II  Cymb.,  II,  4.  »  Cymb.,  V,  5,  228. 
™Phil.,  Ill,  i.  *Phit.,  V,  5. 

13  Cymb.,  Ill,  4,  20,  seq.  28  Cymb.,  V,  5. 

*Phil.,  Ill,  2.  »/%*/.,  V,  5. 

16  Cymb.,  II,  5.  3°  Cymb.,  V,  5. 

153 


These  parallels  indicate  a  close  similarity  between  the  two 
plots,  yet  after  all  the  similarity  does  not  lie  so  much  in  the 
stories  as  in  the  situations.  The  basis  of  the  Imogen  story  is 
probably  the  ninth  novel  of  the  second  day  in  the  Decamerone. 
This  story,  the  story  of  lachimo's  trick,  forms  no  part  of 
Philaster.  To  this  lachimo-Imogen  story,  however,  Shak- 
spere  added  a  dozen  or  so  situations  which  are  almost  exact 
counterparts  of  situations  in  Philaster. 

Although  the  resemblance  is  not  so  close,  the  idyllic  scenes 
in  Cymbeline  have  more  than  a  chance  likeness  to  those  in 
Philaster.  The  scenes  in  the  mountains  between  Belarius  and 
his  foster  sons,  which  give  an  opportunity  to  display  Imogen's 
character  with  so  much  charm,  recall  a  passage  in  Philaster. 

"  Oh,  that  I  had  been  nourished  in  these  woods 
With  milk  of  goats  and  acorns,  and  not  known 
The  right  of  crowns  nor  the  dissembling  trains 
Of  women's  looks  ;  but  digged  myself  a  cave, 
Where  I,  my  fire,  my  cattle,  and  my  bed, 
Might  have  been  shut  together  in  one  shed  ; 
And  then  had  taken  me  some  mountain  girl, 
Beaten  with  winds,  chaste  as  the  hardened  rocks 
Whereon  she  dwelt,  that  might  have  strewed  my  bed 
With  leaves  and  reeds,  and  with  the  skins  of  beasts, 
Our  neighbors,  and  have  borne  at  her  big  breasts 
My  large,  coarse  issue!     This  had  been  a  life 
Free  from  vexation."  1 

The  same  ideas  receive  a  much  greater  amplification  in  Cym- 
beline, where  Belarius  dwells  in  a  cave  and  upholds  the  free, 
isolated  life  in  a  long  discussion  with  his  sons.2  The  passage 
in  which  Philaster  describes  his  meeting  with  Bellario  : 

"Hunting  the  buck, 
I  found  him  sitting  by  a  fountain's  side,"  etc.8 

gives  expression  to  similar  idyllic  sentiments.  The  scenic 
representation  of  the  idyl  in  Philaster  is  much  less  notable 
than  in  Cymbeline  but  occupies  the  whole  of  the  fourth  act. 
The  four  scenes  of  that  act  are  located  in  a  forest  whither  come 
a  hunting  party,  a  country  fellow,  woodmen,  and  the  two 
maidens  wandering  forlorn.  Into  this  forest,  as  in  the  moun- 
tains of  Belarius,  tragic  events  press  thick  and  fast. 

The  idyllic  elements  in  each  play  have  still  further  similarity 
in  the  developments  of  the  stories  oLJmogen-Bidele  and 
Euphrasia-  Bellario.  As  a  princess  at  court,  Imogen  resembles 
ATeTBusa,  but  as  a  page  in  the  country  scenes  she  has  a  closer 
likeness  to  Bellario.  As  Dr.  Leonhardt  has  shown,  the  resem- 
blance is  also  much  closer  than  that  between  Bellario  and 
Viola.  The  resemblance  between  the  two  latter  consists  mainly 


154 


*/.,  IV,  2. 

.,  Ill,  3. 
8  /%#.,  I,  2. 


in  their  one  common  situation,  each  being  the  messenger  from 
the  man  she  loves  to  the  woman  he  loves.  Imogen  and  Bel- 
lario,  however,  are  alike  in  their  situations,  sentiments,  and 
characters.  In  noting  their  likenesses,  we  may  join  our  dis- 
cussion of  the  plots  with  that  of  the  characterization  of  the 
two  plays.  . 

They  both  serve  as  pages,  in  their  boys'  clothes  they  wander  | 
through  the  woods,  they  suffer  fatigue,1  they  beg  for  food,a 
they  are   heart-sick,  again  and  again  both   wish   for   death  ;  \ 
and  throughout  all  their  misfortunes  they  appeal  in  every  line 
to  the  most  sentimental  sympathies  of  an  audience.     Their  ' 
tenderness,  simplicity,  and  utter  devotion  to  their  lords  are 
emphasized  over  and  over  again.     They  are  both  extremely 
romantic  idealizations  of  the  '  love-lorn  maiden  *  type;  and  for 
all  the  finer  shading  she  receives  from  the  meeting  with  her 
unknown  brothers,   Imogen  does  not  unquestionably  present 
the  more  exquisite  poetry.     Dramatically,  at  least,  she  says 
nothing  quite  so  sympathetically  effective  as  Bellario's  sub- 
mission: 

"  Alas,  my  lord,  my  life  is  not  a  thing 
Worthy  your  noble  thoughts  !  't  is  not  a  life, 
'T  is  but  a  piece  of  childhood  thrown  away."  3 

Other  characters  in  the  two  plays  offer  points  of  likeness. 
The  two  kings  are  almost  identically  the  same,  except  that  the 
king  of  Calabria  receives  a  certain  coarseness  from  his  belief 
in  his  daughter's  guilt,  and  Cymbeline  a  certain  importance 
from  the  historical  narrative.  The  queen  in  Cymbeline  and 
Megra  in  Philaster  at  least  supply  the  same  dramatic  require- 
ment for  a,  wicked  womafl  •  and  Dion  and  Pisanio  for  a  faithful 
friend.  Philaster  and  L,eonatus  have  similar  situationsln  fEe" 
love  stories  and  resemble_each  other  not_pnly  in  the  general 
attributes  oTlnobTe  heroes  but  specifically  in  the'lury  of  jtheir 
jealousy,  in  their  freedom  from  any  sensual  motives,  and  in  the 
strongly  jnarkejd».  sentimental  character  of  their  love.  Cloten 
andj^]iaj^marLd_ar^LJ^ 

both^braggarts.  They  fill  similar  situations,  and  each  one 
selves  to  supply  the  comic  element  in  the  play.  Thus,  the 
persons  of  the  main  action  of  each  play  may  be  paired  together; 
and  if  the  resemblance  is  apparent  to  the  reader,  despite  the 
different  imaginative  development  and  phrasing  given  by  the 
different  poets,  it  must  have  been  very  marked  on  the  stage 
where  the  two  representatives  of  the  same  type  had  similar 
situations,  similar  action,  similar  costumes,  and  very  probably 
the  same  actors.4 


Ill,  6,  i,  seq.     Phil.,  IV,  4,  i,  seq. 
2  Cymd.,  Ill,  6,  45,  seq.     Phil.,  IV,  3,  8,  seq. 
3/%z7.,  V.  2,  14-17. 
4  Both  plays  were  acted  by  the  King's  men. 

155 


The  general  similarity  of  characters,  situations,  and  senti- 
ments, and  even  some  slight  verbal  similarities  may  be  further 
seen  by  comparing  the  following  parallel  passages.  First,  take 
the  opening  sixty  or  seventy  lines  of  each  play.  Second,  com- 
pare Arethusa's  speech  at  the  end  of  act  III  : 

"  Peace  guide  thee  !     Thou  hast  overthrown  me  once ;  "  etc. 
with  Imogen's  speech  on  Leonatus'  falseness : 

"True  honest  men  being  heard,  like  false  ^neas,"  etc.1 
Third,  compare  Posthumus'  soliloquy,  beginning: 

"  O,  vengeance,  vengeance  !  "  2 
with  Philaster's, 

"  Now  you  may  take  that  little  right  I  have 
To  this  poor  kingdom,"  etc.3 

Or  the  beginning  of  Posthumus'  soliloquy  where  he  dwells  on 
Imogen's  apparent  chastity  with  the  opening  lines  of  another 
by  Philaster: 

"  Oh,  let  all  women 
That  love  black  deeds,  learn  to  dissemble  here,"  etc.4 

Fourth,  compare  Philaster's  speech  after  he  is  hurt  by  the 
country  fellow5  with  lachimo's  after  he  has  been  overcome  by 
Posthumus.6  There  is  also  a  similar  word  play  on  'strange' 
and  '  stranger  : ' 7  and  in  connection  with  the  resemblance  be- 
tween the  idyllic  scenes,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  name  Bel- 
lario  in  Philaster  appears  in  Cymbeline  as  Belarius. 

Between  Philaster  and  Cymbeline,  then,  there  is  a  closer 
resemblance  than  has  been  indicated  between  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  and  Shakspere's  romances.  In  plot,  characters,  and 
style,  each  play  possesses  the  distinguishing  traits  of  its  class; 
but  in  addition  to  these  there  are  enough  specific  similarities 
to  make  it  very  probable  that  one  play  was  directly  suggested 
by  the  other.  When  we  remember  that  both  plays  were  written 
at  nearly  the  same  time,  for  the  same  company,  and  by  drama- 

1  III,  4,  60-66. 

2 II.  5,  8,  seq. 

8 III,  2. 

*/%*/.,  Ill,  i. 

5  Phil.  IV,  3.     "  The  gods  take  part  against  me  :  could  this  boor 
Have  held  me  thus  else?  " 

6Cymb.,  V,  2,  1-6. 

7  Megra.  "  Near  me,  perhaps  :  but  there  's  a  lady  endures  no  stran- 
ger ;  and  to  me  you  appear  a  very  strange  fellow." 

Lady.  "  Methinks  he's  not  so  strange;  he  would  quickly  be  ^ac- 
quainted." {Philaster,  I,  i. 

First  Lord.  "  Did  you  hear  of  a  stranger  that's  come  to  court  to- 
night?" 

Cloten.     "  A  stranger,  and  I  know  not  on't !  " 

Second  Lord.  "  He  's  a  strange  fellow  himself,  and  knows  it  not." 
{Cymbeline,  II,  i. 

156 


tists  who  must  have  been  acquainted,  the  probability  approaches 
certainty. 

Our  comparison  of  the  two  plays  thus  re-enforces  the  con- 
clusion already  reached  that  there  must  have  been  some  direct 
indebtedness  of  one  set  of  romances  to  the  other.  It  also 
brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  question,  which  was  the  debtor 
and  which  the  creditor  ? 

It  is  not  only  practically  certain  that  Philaster  was  written 
for  the  King's  men  while  Shakspere  was  still  writing  for  that 
company;  it  is  also  probable  that  it  was  written  before  Cym- 
beline.^  In  that  case  we  could  not  escape  the  conclusion  that 
Shakspere  was  indebted  to  Philaster. 

Suppose  for  a  moment  that  our  chronology  was  certain  instead 
of  probable,  and  let  us  see  what  the  nature  of  Shakspere' s 
indebtedness  would  be.  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  had  already 
experimented  with  several  plays  when  they  produced  Philaster. 
Acted  by  the  King's  men  at  t"hf>  f^lohe  n.prf  at  the  more  fash- 
ionable Blackfriarju  the  play  made  an  instant  and  complete 
success.  Thts  was  due  not  only  to  the  skill  of1  the  authors  in 
constructing  the  plot,  in  developing  telling  situations,  and  in 
writing  a  verse  notably  suited  to  stage  action;  it  was  also  due 
to  many  novel  features.  There  had  been  no  plav  for  seven  or 
eight  years  at  all  resembling  f'/iitaster. During  that  time,  at 
least,  there  had  been  no  character  like  Bellario,  no  play  con- 
taining such  a  contrast  of  tragic  and  idyllic  scenes,  or  presenting 
such_ji_  s_urrjrising  and  ingenious  donouem^t. With  aTFthe 
excitement  andHpaflTos  of  a  heroic  tragedy,  it  had  all  the  charm 
of  a  sentimental  comedy.  After  thelgngf  succession  of  g1^r>*r|y 
tragedies,  historical  plays  wiflT'nnT"^01^  bqi-t^,  Qri^  sgtirirgl  / 
and  realistic  comedies  of  London  lifer  this  romance  filled  theL  y 
audience  witn  surprise  and  delight. 

Etffmg  the  year  or  Two  preceding,  Shakspere  had  been 
writing  Antony  and  Cleopatra,  Timon,  and  Coriolanus.  Perhaps 
he  was  growing  tired  of  tragic  and  classical  themes;  perhaps 
his  mood  was  changing  and  he  was  beginning  to  take  a  more 
cheerful  view  of  life;  perhaps  Timon  and  Coriolanus  had  not 
achieved  great  success  on  the  stage — at  any  rate  the  success  of 
Philaster  aroused  his  interest.  He  may  have  known  of  the 
play  before  it  was  acted,  and  followed  its  development  in  the 
hands  of  his  brilliant  young  friends;  he  may  have  watched 
their  earlier  work  with  a  generous  appreciation  of  their  talents. 
As  soon  as  Philaster  was  acted  by  his  company,  he  must  cer- 
tainly have  perceived  its  dramatic  and  poetic  excellencies,  the 
theatrical  value  of  some  of  its  innovations,  and  the  appeal 
which  its  romantic  situations  made  to  the  audiences.  With 
his  usual  quickness  to  take  advantage  of  anything  the  con- 
gee p.  95,  ante. 

157 


J 


temporary  drama  offered,  he  at  once  forsook  the  themes  with 
which  he  had  been  dealing  for  some  seven  years  and  started 
to  write  a  play  in  friendly  rivalry  of  Philaster.  Possibly  he 
already  had  the  historical  story  of  Cymbeline  partially  com- 
posed; to  this  he  added  other  stories  and  many  situations  which 
were  like  those  in  Philaster.  He  made  his  play  tragic  in  many 
of  its  circumstances  and,  recognizing  the  effectiveness  of  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher's  use  of  a  happy  ending,  he  labored  especially 
over  a  happy  denouement.  He  introduced  idyllic  scenes  and 
developed  them  more  fully  than  had  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
and  he  introduced  a  sentimental  heroine  that  should  surpass 
Bellario.  Perhaps  the  sweetness  and  tenderness  of  that  maiden 
touched  Shakspere's  feeling  and  harmonized  with  his  new  mood 
of  peaceful  reconciliation  with  life;  and  it  may  be  the  clever 
boy-actor  who  had  made  a  success  in  Bellario  wanted  a  similar 
part.  If  so,  the  task  proved  a  congenial  one  to  Shakspere. 
The  part  of  Imogen  seems  to  have  been  created  with  freer 
fancy  and  more  spontaneous  expression  than  the  rest  of  the 
play.  He  recalled  the  women  of  his  earlier  comedies,  Julia, 
Hero,  Rosalind,  Helena,  and  Viola,  but  he  also  had  in  mind 
the  traits  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  heroines.  In  the  case 
of  some  of  the  other  characters,  in  the  new  structural  experi- 
ment of  the  denouement,  and  in  the  versification,  he  worked 
with  much  less  spontaneity  and  with  apparent  effort.  In  fact, 
however  much  he  was  moved  by  thoughts  of  reconciliation, 
gentleness,  and  peace,  he  was  also  striving  to  make  a  play 
which  should  equal  in  theatrical  effectiveness  the  recent  success 
gained  by  the  skill  and  innovation  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 
Seeking  the  same  end  as  they  did,  he  used  similar  means. 
When  completed,  however,  Cymbeline  did  not  owe  a  very  large 
share  of  its  total  effect  to  Philaster.  Shakspere  was  in  posses- 
sion of  all  the  dramatic  mastery  which  he  had  learned  in  twenty 
years'  experience.  Whatever  changes  he  made  in  methods  of 
construction,  characterization,  or  versification,  wrere  directed 
by  his  own  experience.  Whatever  hints  or  suggestions  he 
received  from  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  for  situations  or  traits  of 
character  were  colored  by  the  plots  and  people  of  his  own  plays 
and  transformed  by  his  genius.  \  But  he  was  trying  to  produce 
and  did  produce  a  play  with  many  of  the  specific  characteristics 
and  of  the  same  type  as  Philaster. ' 

Some  such  statement  of  the  influence  of  Philaster  on  Cym- 
beline could  be  adopted  if  we  were  certain  of  our  chronology. 
But  the  evidence  for  the  priority  of  Philaster  is  not  conclusive, 
and  its  support  cannot  be  confidently  relied  on.  Leaving  aside, 
then,  the  question  of  exact  date  and  only  premising  the  fact 
that  both  plays  were  written  at  about  the  same  time,  we  must 
face  the  questions — which  is  more  plausible,  that  Shakspere 
influenced  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  or  that  they  influenced 

158 


Shakspere  ?  —  which  on  its  face  is  more  likely  to  be  the  original,    . 
Cymbeline  or  Philaster? 

The  question  is  not  which  play  owes  most  to  other  plays, 
but  which  was  the  earliest  representative  of  the  '  romance  ' 
type  ?     Many  situations  and  characteristics  in  Philaster  show 
the  influence  of  earlier  plays,  but  it  represents  a  type  that  was 
new.     Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  new  writers  for  the  stage;      / 
it  is  one  of  the  earliest  of  their  notable  plays;  it  was  followed 
immediately  by  five  romances  of  the  same  style  in  plot  and 
characters;  it  possesses  all  the  important  traits  and  is  one  of 
the  most  masterly  plays  of  the  class.     It  presents  traits  of 
characterization,  style,  and  plot  which  mark  Fletcher's  work 
for  the  next  twenty  years.     All  these  facts  create  a  strong 
presumption  that  Philaster  was  the  original. 

We  began  this  investigation  with  the  premise  that  Shakspere 
was  as  eager  as  any  Elizabethan  dramatist  for 


that  he  was  as  likely  as  any  to  be  influenced  by  current  fashions 
and  the  practice  of  his  contemporaries.  At  every  point  we 
have  found  definite  indications  that  he  was  striving  for  stage- 
effectiveness  and  no  evidence  which  would  make  his  imitation 
of  Philaster  seem  unplausible.  Apart  from  his  relation  to 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  our  study  has  revealed  several  results 
which  illustrate  his  adaptability  to  theatrical  conditions.  The 
fact  that  he  abandoned  romantic  comedy  for  tragedy  at  the  time 
other  dramatists  were  turning  away  from  romance  is  significant; 
and  his  plays  from  1601  to  1609,  even  on  the  briefest  consider- 
ation, reveal  an  evident  observance  of  current  forms  and  fashions. 
His  collaboration  with  Fletcher  bears  further  testimony  to  his 
subservience  to  theatrical  conditions.  It  might  reasonably  be 
held  to  justify  the  inference  that  he  recognized  in  Fletcher  the 
dramatist  best  able  to  satisfy  the  stage-demand  of  the  day. 
At  all  events,  Henry  VIII  and  the  Two  Noble  Kinsmen  do  not 
indicate  that  Fletcher  was  an  imitator  of  Shakspere;  they  do 
indicate  that  if  Shakspere  in  his  late  period  was  influenced  by 
any  contemporary  dramatist,  Fletcher  was  the  man. 

We  also  started  with  a  suggestion  that  there  was  an  a  priori 
likelihood  that  Shakspere  would  prove  on  careful  investigation 
an  adapter  rather  than  an  inventor  of  dramatic  forms.  Since 
this  investigation  was  undertaken,  that  hypothesis  has  received 
a  very  striking  confirmation  in  Mr.  Sidney  Lee's  masterly 
discussion  of  the  sonnets.  Of  all  Shakspere  's  work  they  have 
generally  been  regarded  the  most  expressive  of  his  personal 
opinions  and  experiences.  Mr.  Lee  has  shown  that  they  were 
undoubtedly  indebted  to  preceding  sonnet  series,  and  that  in 
them  Shakspere  frankly  adopted  many  of  the  conventions  and 
methods  of  a  fashionable  literary  form.  Our  examination  of 
his  indebtedness  to  the  court  masques  has  shown  him  in  a 
similar  way  borrowing  and  imitating  many  features  of  a  fash- 
ionable dramatic  form. 

159 


We  may,  indeed,  safely  assert  that  Shakspere  almost  never 
invented  dramatic  types.  In  his  earliest  plays  he  was  a  ver- 
satile imitator  of  current  forms,  and  in  his  later  work  he  was 
constantly  adapting  dramatic  types  used  by  other  men.  He 
wrote  chronicle-histories,  romantic  and  sentimental  comedies, 
farcical  comedies  of  manners,  tragedies  based  on  classical  his- 
tory, a  tragedy  of  blood-revenge.  In  none  of  these  cases  did 
he  originate  a  dramatic  type  or  first  introduce  one  on  the 
Elizabethan  stage;  in  all  these  cases  he  was  to  a  large  extent 
an  adapter  and  transformer.  Cymbeline  differs  markedly  from 
any  play  he  had  previously  written;  and  its  differences  prove 
to  be  traits  similar  to  those  characteristic  of  the  Beaumont- 
Fletcher  romances.  These  facts  create  a  strong  presumption 
that  Cymbeline  was  the  copy. 

Still  further  we  must  remember  the  well-attested  success  of 
Philaster  and  its  manifest  spontaneity.  No  play  of  its  day  was 
more  warmly  praised  by  its  contemporaries;  no  play  by  its 
authors  seems  more  completely  their  own,  more  characteristic 
of  their  temperaments  and  methods.  Cymbeline,  on  the  con- 
trary, has  no  such  evidence  of  success  as  Romeo  and  Juliet, 
Hamlet,  or  the  Tempest,  nor  has  it  a  tithe  of  their  spontaneity. 
In  the  opinion  of  most  critics,  it  shows  decided  creative  effort. 
It  was  an  experiment  in  new  fields  made  at  the  close  of  his 
career  by  a  consummate  adapter,  and  made  with  evident  effort. 
These  considerations  surely  add  to  the  probability  that  Beau- 
mont and, , Fletcher  were  the  inventors  and  Shakspere  the 
adapter.  ' 

The  final  decision  must  hinge  on  such  considerations  as  these. 
If  we  leave  aside  the  direct  evidence  in  regard  to  the  dates, 
all  our  knowledge  of  the  authors  of  the  two  plays  and  of  the 
dramatic  conditions  of  the  time  seem  to  me  to  point  to  the 
conclusion  that  in  some  such  way  as  has  been  hypothetically 
described,  Philaster  influenced  Cymbeline. 


1 60 


CHAPTER  X. 

A  WINTER'S  TALE  AND  THE  TEMPEST. 

A  Winter's  Tale  and  The  Tempest  do  not  show  so  close  a 
relation  as  Cymbeline  to  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  romantic  type. 
Neither  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  any  one  play  as 
Cymbeline  by  Philaster\  they  are  both  plays,  however,  which 
link  themselves  with  Cymbeline  in  separation  from  the  rest  of 
Shakspere's  work  and  which  possess,  as  has  already  been  in- 
dicated, many  of  the  characteristics  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher 
romances.  Which  of  the  two  was  written  first  is  hardly  de- 
terminable,  but  there  is  general  agreement  that  they  both 
succeeded  Cymbeline.  If  this  order  is  the  true  one;  there  is  no 
reason  for  expecting  traces  of  anything  like  direct  imitation 
to  be  longer  prominent.  We  may  rather  expect  to  find 
Shakspere  transforming  the  experimental  form  of  Cymbeline 
into  something  indisputably  his  own.  We  may,  however,  ex- 
pect to  find  evidences  of  the  Beaumont- Fletcher  methods  and 
fashions  and  of  Shakspere's  development  of  them.  At  the 
risk  of  repetition,  we  will  consider  some  of  the  ways  in  which 
the  two  plays  show  Shakspere's  development  of  the  Beaumont- 
Fletcher  romance,  which  he  had  first  tried  in  Cymbeline. 

The  Winter' s  Tale  gives  prominence  to  a  sentimental  love 
story  and  has  an  involved  plot  with  decided  contrasts  of  tragic 
and  idyllic  incidents.  The  stories  of  Leontes'  jealousy  and 
fury  and  of  the  apparent  deaths  of  Hermione  and  Perdita  oc- 
cupy the  whole  of  the  first  three  acts.  Instead  of  weaving 
the  idyllic  scenes  and  the  sentimental  love  story  into  the  main 
plot,  Shakspere  added  them  in  an  almost  separate  play  which 
occupies  the  whole  of  the  fourth  act.  It  .goes  without  saying 
that  he  has  treated  this  idyllic  element  with  complete  origin- 
ality, and  with  a  reality  which  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  never 
approached.  This  fourth  act  is,  indeed,  about  the  only  part  of 
the  romances  which  has  an  atmosphere  of  reality.  In  the  fifth 
act,  the  two  distinct  plays  are  united  with  due  regard  for  an 
unexpected  and  effective  denouement. 

The  use  of  a  happy  ending,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  a 
change  from  Greene's  novel.  This  change  and  the  carefully 
prepared  denouement  are  general  traits  of  the  romances;  and 
so,  too,  is  the  construction  of  the  main  plot.  It  is  notably  a 
succession  of  situations.  Sometimes,  indeed,  situations  suc- 
ceed each  other  with  a  rapidity  which  destroys  all  effect  of 

161 


plausibility,  however  well  it  may  favor  varied  and  violent 
action.  For  example,  the  first  act  opens  conventionally  with 
a  conversation  between  some  gentlemen  of  the  court  explaining 
the  circumstances  of  the  succeeding  action.  Then  follows  the 
lively  dialogue  in  which  Hermione  succeeds  in  persuading 
Polixenes  to  lengthen  his  visit;1  I<eontes,  immediately  aroused 
to  jealousy,  is  left  to  soliloquize  and  to  talk  with  the  child 
Mamillius;2  Hermione  and  Polixenes  return  and  add  a  little 
fresh  fuel  to  his  fire;  as  they  retire  again,  he  breaks  out  in  the 
exceedingly  vile  and  violent  speech,  beginning: 

"  Gone  already, 
Inch  deep,  knee  deep,  o'er  head  and  ears  a  fork'd  one!"8 

There  is  some  further  accentuation  by  Mamillius'  prattle;  then 
comes  the  dialogue  with  Camillo,  whose  belief  in  Hermione's 
innocence  furnishes  a  good  acting  contrast  with  the  king's 
impatient  jealousy,  and  who  is  finally  persuaded  to  agree  to 
poison  Polixenes;  then  Camillo  has  a  soliloquy,  one  phrase 
of  which  seems  almost  an  echo  from  Beaumont  and  Fletcher: 

"  If  I  could  find  example 

Of  thousands  that  had  struck  annointed  kings 
And  flourished  after,"  etc.4 

Polixines  next  enters:  Camillo  explains  the  circumstances  to 
him,  and  they  agree  to  flee. 

Thus  in  450  lines,  in  addition  to  all  the  necessary  expository 
matter,  Shakspere  has  contrived  to  bring  in  seven  or  eight  dis- 
tinct situations.  By  means  of  these  situations  Leontes'  jealousy 
is  given  its  origin  and  development,  and  the  Polixenes-Florizel 
story  is  well  introduced.  To  see  how  great  is  the  change  from 
the  old  methods  of  construction  we  have  only  to  recur  again 
to  the  treatment  of  Othello's  jealousy. 

In  dramatizing  Greene's  old  and  popular  romance,  Shak- 
spere, after  the  fashion  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  created  a 
play  distinguished  by  its  effective  situations  and  the  construc- 
tive feat  of  its  remarkable  denouement.  How  great  the  de- 
parture is  from  his  earlier  methods  may  be  seen  by  comparing 
the  Winter's  Tale  with  Pericles  (1607-8?)  a  play  that  seems  to 
many  to  be  connected  with  the  romances.5  There  Shakspere 
was  also  dramatizing  an  old  and  popular  story  and  one  similar 
to  the  story  of  the  Winter' s  Tale,  but  he  gave  it  a  form  that 
is  primitively  undramatic  and  in  most  striking  contrast  with 
the  constructive  ingenuity  of  the  later  play. 

Of  the  fourth  act,  one  dislikes  to  say  anything  which  may 
even  appear  to  indicate  a  failure  to  appreciate  its  spontaneity: 
but  even  here  Shakspere  is  only  giving  an  original  development 

*!,  2,  1-108.  « I,  2,  357. 

2I,  2,  108-146.  8See  Appendix. 

8 1,  2,  185,  seq. 

162 


to  the  inevitable  idyl.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  business 
of  a  girl  gathering  flowers  in  March  had  been  seen  on  the  stage 
before  Shakspere  was  born.1  The  business  of  shepherds  and 
shepherdesses  was  also  an  old  and  popular  theatrical  convention, 
and  the  dance  of  satyrs  was  an  entertainment  probably  directly 
borrowed  from  a  court  masque.  The  reality  given  to  these 
conventions  and  to  the  equally  conventional  love  story  is  Shak- 
spere's  own,  and  is  secured  largely  by  the  introduction  of  comic 
characters  from  real  life. 

Of  the  characters  of  the  play;  we  have  already  considered 
many.  It  may  be  added  that  Perdita's  vitality  arises  rather 
from  that  atmosphere  of  real  life  in  the  country  scene  than 
from  anything  individual  in  her  own  lines.  The  style,  too, 
structurally  considered,  is  the  same  as  that  of  Cymbeline;  and 
the  various  devices  for  stage  effect  have  already  been  noticed. 

The  Winter' s  Tale,  then,  seems  in  its  main  traits  a  develop- 
ment from  the  same  type  as  Cymbeline.  Its  most  marked  dis- 
tinction from  the  imitative  character  of  that  play  is  found  in 
the  very  vital  connection  established  between  the  sentimental 
love  story  and  the  comic  elements  of  real  life.  In  the  nature 
of  the  plot,  in  its  mixture  of  tragic  and  idyllic,  in  ingeniously 
dramatic  situations  and  denouement,  in  weakened  characteriza- 
tion, and  in  a  more  dramatic  style,  the  play  belongs  to  the 
romance  type  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

The  Tempest  at  first  sight  seems  to  differ  much  more  than 
the  Winter' s  Tale  from  a  romance  like  Cymbeline.  This  is 
perhaps  mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  we  always  think  of  it 
as  a  poem  and  never  as  a  play.  More  than  any  other  of 
Shakspere' s  plays,  it  seems  to  embody  a  conscious  effort  at  the 
expression  of  a  definite  artistic  mood.  The  beauty  of  its  ideal- 
ized picture  of  life,  the  serenity  of  its  philosophy,  the  charm 
of  its  verse  make  it  a  poem  to  be  treasured  and  pondered  over 
and  loved.  To  understand,  however,  just  what  its  effect  must 
have  been  on  the  Elizabethan  stage,  we  must  minimize  the 
effect  of  its  poetry  and  recall  some  elements  of  the  play  which 
are  no  longer  salient.  We  must  analyze  not  the  aesthetic  mood 
which  it  creates  in  us  but  the  structure  of  the  play  itself. 

A  few  truisms  may  again  be  repeated.  The  play  was  not 
printed  until  Shakspere' s  plays  were  collected  long  after  his 
death:  it  was  written  for  and  acted  on  the  stage  where  it  was 
evidently  popular.  While  Shakspere' s  imagination  has  filled 
it  with  permanent  beauty  and  truth,  he  could  not  have  written 
it  without  having  in  mind  its  stage-effectiveness.  If  we  look, 
then,  at  the  qualities  which  distinguish  it  as  a  stag;e  play,  we 
find  many  indications  of  current  dramatic  fashions  and  many 
points  of  resemblance  to  the  general  type  of  romances. 

1See  p.  4,  ante. 


For  the  plot  there  is,  as  usual,  a  story  of  sentimental  love 
and  a  correlated  plot  of  intrigue  and  murder.1  We  have  only 
to  see  the  play  on  the  stage  to  realize  that  the  story  of  the 
bewildered  courtiers  (however  uninteresting  to  modern  taste) 
is  the  best  acting  part  of  the  play.  That  story,  probably  from 
some  Italian  source,  forms  the  basis  of  the  plot.  As  Mr.  Wen- 
dell has  shown,2  Shakspere  has  elaborated  the  denouement  into 
five  acts.  The  play  is  simply  the  expanded  fifth  act  of  a  tragi- 
comedy— a  surprising,  romantic  denouement. 

This  is  the  distinguishing  feature  of  the  construction,  but 
there  are  many  other  evidences  that  Shakspere  was  striving 
for  stage  effect.  Perhaps  for  this  reason  he  followed  the  unities 
of  time  and  place,  for  whose  observance  Beaumont  had  praised 
Jonson.  Moreover,  he  added  to  the  tragic-idyllic  story,  inci- 
dents, characters,  and  scenes,  almost  surely  suggested  by  tales 
of  a  voyage  to  the  new  world  which  were  just  then  exciting 
general  interest.  The  enchanted  island,  the  magic  of  Prospero, 
the  monster  Caliban,  and  the  fairy  Ariel  must  certainly  have 
been  novel  and  interesting  to  Elizabethan  audiences.  As  in 
the  Winter's  Tale,  he  also  gained  stage-effectiveness  and  les- 
sened the  artificiality  of  the  idyllic  element  by  introducing 
comic  personages  after  the  style  of  those  in  his  early  comedies. 
He  also  used  some  of  the  stage  devices  which  he  had  earlier 
used  in  the  Midsummer  Nigh? s  Dream. 

Most  notable,  however,  of  all  the  devices  for  stage  effect, 
was  the  pageantry  borrowed  from  the  court  masques.  We 
.  have  already  seen  that  the  Tempest  was  in  part  a  stage  pageant, 
definitely  constructed  on  the  style  of  those  popular  entertain- 
ments. In  this  respect  it  resembles  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's 
Four  Plays  in  One,  which  also  combines  romantic  situations  with 
masque-like  pageants.  In  borrowing  from  the  masques  Shak- 
spere was  making  use  of  a  very  popular  fashion. 

Most  of  the  characters,  as  we  have  noted,  are  developments 
of  the  conventionalized  types.  Miranda  says  little  or  nothing 
which  has  a  trace  of  direct  individualized  characterization. 
The  speech  which  comes  the  nearest  to  this,  her  proposal  to 
Ferdinand,  sounds  very  much  like  one  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  heroines. 

"  Wherefore  weep  you  ? 
At  mine  unworthiness,  that  dare  not  offer 
What  I  desire  to  give  ;  and  much  less  take 
What  I  shall  die  to  want.     But  this  is  trifling ; 
And  all  the  more  it  seeks  to  hide  itself, 
The  bigger  bulk  it  shows.     Hence,  bashful  cunning  ! 
And  prompt  me,  plain  and  holy  innocence ! 
I  am  your  wife,  if  you  will  marry  me ; 
If  not,  I'll  die  your  maid  :  to  be  your  fellow 

JNote  also  Caliban's  attempted  rape  of  Miranda. 
2  William  Shakspere,  pp.  317-318. 

164 


You  may  deny  me  ;  but  I  '11  be  your  servant, 
Whether  you  will  or  no."  A 

To-day  the  audience  laughs  as  Miss  Ada  Rehan  speaks  the 
lines.  They  have  no  individual  vitality;  and  we  are  not  used 
to  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  idyl.2 

The  style  of  the  Tempest  shpws  far  more  mastery  than  that    ji 
of  the  two  other  romances;  but,  for  all  its  greater  beauty,  it  is  \ 
structurally  the  same.     From  the  nature  of  the  play,  some-  ' 
thing  of  a  return  to  the  old  lyrical  structure  might  be  expected,  , 
but  there  are  no  indications  of  this.     One  or  two  examples 
will   indicate  that  the  disjointed,   parenthetical   structure  of 
Cymbeline  is  retained  but  used  with  greater  skill.     For  an  ex- 
ample of  its  use  in  passages  involving  intense  action,  take  the 
speeches  of  Antonio.8     For  its  use  in  narrative  take  Prospero's 
account  of  his  misfortunes,4  or  his  account  of  Caliban's  plot.6 
To  see  how  far  this  structure  had  become  a  matter  of  habit 
even  in  set  declamations,  take  Prospero's  speech  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  last  act,6  or  Ariel's  speech  to  the  courtiers.7 

In  style,  therefore,  as  well  as  in  characters  and  plot,  the 
Tempest  resembles  the  other  romances.  In  style,  however, 
and  in  all  other  elements,  the  differences  are  not  less  notable 
than  the  resemblances.  The  characteristics  of  the  romances 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  which  appear  in  Cymbeline,  reappear 
in  the  Tempest,  but  altered  and  transformed.  While  Cymbeline 
seems  an  experiment  suggested  by  Philaster,  the  Tempest  is  a 
development  of  the  'romance'  type,  which  is  in  the  highest 
degree  masterly  and  original.  Perhaps  there  is  no  better  way  • 
of  appreciating  its  supreme  art  than  by  recalling  some  steps  in 
its  creation.  We  can  best  estimate  Shakspere's  accomplish- 
ment by  remembering  with  what  materials  and  conditions  he 
began. 

Our  analysis  has  shown  that  his  transformation  of  the  ro- 


,  i,  76-85. 

2  The  resemblance  between  Ariel  and  the  Satyr  in  Fletcher's  Faithful 
Shepherdess  has  frequently  been  noticed.  Not  only  is  there  a  close 
verbal  resemblance  between  some  of  their  lines  ;  both  have  traits  in 
common,  and  each  is  the  servant  and  nimble  messenger  of  a  superior 
being.  Fletcher's  Satyr  has  also  many  points  of  similarity  to  the 
faun-like  satyrs  and  '  wild-men  '  of  the  early  English  pastoral  enter- 
tainments ;  particularly  to  the  satyr  in  Ben  Jonson's  Complaint  q/ 
Satyrs  against  Nymphs  (1603).  There  the  satyr  is  a  singer,  a  piper, 
a  merry  fellow,  a  companion  of  the  fairies,  and  also  serves  as  a  mes- 
senger and  sort  of  chorus.  Possibly  Shakspere's  Ariel  is  a  develop- 
ment of  the  same  type,  which  may  have  received  some  suggestions 
from  the  theatrical  part  of  Fletcher's  Satyr.  See  Modern  Language 
Notes,  April,  1899;  the  Pastoral  Element  in  the  English  Drama. 

8  II,  i,  226-290. 

*I,  2,  106-188. 

5V,  i,  268,  seq. 

6  Note  particularly  V,  i,  61,  seq. 

7  III,  3,  60-82. 

165 


mantic  type  involves  much  besides  a  more  masterly  expression 
of  the  artistic  impulses  which  seem  to  have  dominated  his 
latest  period.  He  was  dealing  as  in  the  other  romances  with 
an  idyllic  love  story  and  a  counterplot  of  tragic  possibilities, 
and  he  was  trying  to  treat  both  with  ingenuity  and  novelty. 
He  found  suggestions  for  much  new  and  sensational  matter  in 
the  reports  of  a  recent  voyage.  He  undertook  a  constructive 
feat  in  handling  the  denouement  such  as  he  had  experi- 
mented upon  in  Cymbeline,  and  for  some  reason  he  chose  strictly  ; 
to  observe  the  unities.  He  borrowed  many  devices,  conven- 
tions, and  situations  from  earlier  plays,  and  he  constructed  a 
stage  pageant  on  the  style  of  the  court  masques.  In  all  these 
respects  he  was  aiming  to  make  his  play  effective  on  the  stage, 
and  in  some  particulars  he  was  following  methods  and  fashions 
used  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  Yet  all  his  varied  aims  are 
perfectly  harmonized  in  the  final  result.  The  Italian  story 
finds  its  true  home  in  the  Bermudas,  and  marvellous  adventures 
are  told  with  strict  adherence  to  Aristotle's  laws.  The  love  of 
a  maiden,  the  old  plot  of  villainous  intrigue,  the  superb  wisdom 
of  Prospero,  all  find  one  haven  through  "calm  seas,  auspicious 
gales. ' '  The  drunken  clowns,  the  Italian  courtiers,  the  strange 
monster,  and  the  '  zephyr-like '  Ariel  play  their  parts  with 
antick  dancers  such  as  Shakspere  had  seen  in  the  court  masques 
at  Whitehall.  Out  of  such  varied  driftwood  rose  Shakspere' s 
enchanted  island. 


1 66 


CHAPTER  XI. 
CONCLUSION. 

A  brief  glance  at  our  conclusions  will  serve  for  a  recapitula- 
tion. The  conjectural  nature  of  some  of  these  has  often  led 
us  to  avoid  using  one  probable  conclusion  in  support  of  another; 
taken  together,  however,  their  cumulative  effect  must  be  con- 
sidered. ^ 

In  the  first  place,  an  examination  of  the  chronology  of 
Shakspere's  romances  and  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  plays 
showed  that  some  of  the  latter  certainly  preceded  the  former, 
and  that  six  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  romances  were  probably 
written  by  the  time  Shakspere  had  produced  three.  Phi/aster 
seemed  probably  earlier  than  Cymbeline.  An  examination 
of  the  stage  history  of  the  period  indicated  thajt^  mutual  in^ 
fluence  between  Shakspere  and  the  younger  dramatists  was 
probable  fronf  the  fact  tnat  they  were  all  writing  plays  for  the 
King's  men" at  the  same  time.  Tne  evidence  that  Shakspere 
and  Fletcher  collaborated  on  two  or  three  plays  made  this 
probability  almost  a  certainty.  Our  study  of  the  chronology 
and  stage  history  of  the  plays  discovered  no  evidence  at  any 
point  contradictory  to  the  hypothesis  that  Shakspere  was  in- 
fluenced by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  made  plain  the  likelihood 
of  some  mutual  influence  between  them,  and  on  the  whole 
indicated  that  the  first  contributions  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
to  heroic  romance  preceded  Shakspere's. 

An  examination  of  all  the  plays  acted  1601-1611  revealed  a 
surprising  paucity  of  plays  which  could  be  classed  with  either 
set  of  romances  and  a  still  more  significant  absence  of  experi- 
menting with  romantic  material.  In  the  light  of  the  work  of 
other  dramatists,  it  became  clear  that  the  romances  were  neither 
the  development  of  current  forms  nor  the  results  of  manifest 
tendencies  in  the  drama,  but  that  they  must  have  been  an  un- 
expected departure  largely  due  to  the  innovation  of  either 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  or  Shakspere.  In  showing  the  inde- 
pendence of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  revival  of  romance  from 
current  influence  and  in  emphasizing  the  significance  of  Shak- 
spere's abrupt  change  from  tragedy  to  romance,  our  examina- 
tion presented  further  indications  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
were  the  innovators. 

A  study  of  the  six  romances  by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
produced  before  the  end  of  1 6 1 1  demonstrated  that  they  con- 

167 


stituted  a  new  and  distinct  type  of  drama.  A  similar  study  of 
the  three  plays  by  Shakspere  showed  that  they  constituted  a 
type  of  drama  decidedly  different  from  the  rest  of  his  work. 
Both  types  of  romances  showed  a  revival  of  romantic  material, 
a  use  of  new  dramatic  methods,  and  an  effort  to  secure  varied 
and  lively  action  on  the  stage  with  some  added  spectacular 
effects.  They  resembled  each  other  so  closely  in  all  their  dis- 
tinctive traits  that  it  seemed  impossible  that  they  could  have 
been  produced  independently  of  each  other.  While  some 
of  these  resemblances  seemed  due  to  current  conditions  and 
common  purposes,  we  concluded  that  one  set  of  romances  was 
indebted  to  the  other  for  the  defining  traits  of  the  type.  And 
there  were  not  lacking  further  indications  that  Shakspere  was 
the  debtor.  ^ 

An  examination  of  P/iitast^and  Cymbeline,  each  an  early 
representative  of  either  type  and  each  written  for  the  King's 
men  before  the  fall  of  1610,  revealed  further  specific  similarities 
which  made  it  almost  certain  that  one  influenced  the  other. 
Philaster  appeared  to  have  been  the  earlier  of  the  two ;  but 
apart  from  considerations  of  dates,  the  general  character  of  the 
plays  indicated  that  Philaster  was  the  original.  /  This  was 
made  still  more  probable  by  consideration  of  the  habits  and 
positions  of  the  authors  themselves.  There  seemed  good  ground 
for  the  supposition  that  Shakspere,  desirous  of  producing  a 
play  which  should  have  the  same  effect  on  the  stage  as  Philaster, 
produced  in  Cymbeline  a  play  of  the  same  type  and  of  many 
of  the  same  specific  characteristics. 

It  was  admitted  that  this  conclusion  would  be  accepted  only 
by  those  who  believe  that  Shakspere  wrote  plays  with  a  keen 
eye  for  theatrical  success,  and  that  he  was  as  ready  as  any  of 
his  fellow-dramatists  to  follow  current  fashions  and  to  receive 
suggestions  from  his  contemporaries.  This  investigation  was 
based  on  the  premise  that  such  a  view  is  justified  by  a  study 
of  the  recognized  facts  of  his  career,  and  on  the  a  priori 
probability  that  further  investigation  might  be  expected  to 
substantiate  and  enlarge  the  opinion  that  he  was  constantly 
indebted  to  his  fellow-dramatists.  Apart  from  the  considera- 
tion of  his  relation  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  many  specific 
results  of  our  investigation  increase  our  confidence  that  Shak- 
spere was  likely  to  have  been  the  adapter. 

In  the  romances  which  followed  Cymbeline,  Shakspere  ap- 
peared to  have  so  far  mastered  the  romantic  type  that  evidences 
of  imitation  became  slight,  and  the  plays  seemed  his  by  birth 
rather  than  by  adoption.  Instead  of  degenerating,  as  it  did  in 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  into  a  pretty  distinctly  conventional- 
ized form,  the  romance  type  developed  under  his  genius  into 
the  Winter" s  Tale  and  the  Tempest.  Even  in  these  plays  he 
seemed  still  to  be  using  the  methods  he  had  adopted  in  Cym- 

168 


beline  and  still  to  be  answering  the  same  theatrical  demand 
which  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  had  first  supplied. 

In  analyzing  Shakspere's  obligations  to  their  romances,  we 
have  noted  many  varieties  from  direct  imitation  in  Cymbeline 
to  original  tranformation  in  the  Tempest.  Sometimes  there  is 
no  indication  of  indebtedness;  he  is  merely  following  the  same 
fashion  which  they  did  or  writing  with  the  same  purpose. 
Sometimes  he  seems  to  have  adopted  a  method  or  a  type  of 
character  which  they  had  used  successfully,  sometimes  to  have 
tried  to  outdo  them  at  their  own  game.  In  no  case  was  he 
merely  adopting  or  imitating,  he  always  adapted  and  usually 
transformed  what  he  borrowed;  but  in  many  details  in  Cym- 
beline, and  generally  in  the  material  of  his  plots,  his  construc- 
tive feats,  and  his  characterization,  Shakspere  appears  to  have 
been  working  either  in  consciqtte  imitation  or  conscious  rivalry 
of  the  younger  dramatists. 

On  the  whole  the  evidence  seems  sufficient  to  establish  the 
probability  of  our  two  main  hypotheses:  first,  that  Shakspere's 
change  from  tragedies  to  romances  is  to  be  accounted  for  by 
the  contemporaneous  production  of  the  Beaumont- Fletcher 
romances;  and  second,  that  these  latter  definitely  influenced 
Cymbeline,  a  Winter's  Tale,  and  the  Tempest. 

Shakspere's  romances  thus  afford  another  illustration  of  the 
way  in  which  his  genius  worked,  transforming  dramatic  forms 
which  other  men  had  invented  into  vital  creations  of  his  own. 
They  afford,  too,  another  evidence  of  the  great  influence  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  the  history  of  English  drama,  and 
they  add  greatly  to  the  indebtedness  we  owe  to  the  astonishing 
invention  and  poetic  genius  of  those  two  dramatists. 


13  169 


APPENDIX.    PERICLES. 

Pericles  is  thought  by  many  to  resemble  the  three  romances 
and  to  bear  to  them  a  relation  similar  to  that  borne  by  the 
early  to  the  great  comedies.  This  possible  relation  to  the 
romances,  rather  than  questions  of  date  and  authorship,  is  the 
problem  before  us.  We  must  examine  what  evidence  there  is 
that  in  Pericles  Shakspere  was  experimenting  with  the  romance 
type  and  consider  what  bearing  such  evidence  has  on  our  con- 
clusion that  his  romances  were  largely  influenced  by  those  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

Questions  concerning  date  and  authorship  are  important  for 
our  purpose,  but  they  are  complicated  by  so  many  difficulties 
that  we  can  only  arrive  at  solutions  which  are  extremely  con- 
jectural. We  must  therefore  be  content  with  noting  the  con- 
jectures that  seem  to  afford  the  safest  hypotheses  and  then  pass 
on  to  the  main  problem. 

Pericles  was  entered  S.  R.  May  20,  1608,  for  Edward  Blount, 
and  was  published  by  Henry  Gosson  in  1609.  This  first  quarto 
states  that  the  play  was  ' '  by  William  Shakespeare  ' '  and  had 
"  been  divers  and  sundry  times  acted  by  his  Majesty's  Servants 
at  the  Globe,  on  the  Bankside. ' '  Pericles  was  not  included  in 
the  first  or  second  folio,  but  was  added  with  six  other  plays  to 
the  third  folio  of  1663.  It  appeared  in  five  different  quartos 
before  the  end  of  1630. 

Whether  the  1608  entry  refers  to  the  1609  quarto  or  not,  and 
how  the  publisher  of  the  quarto  got  hold  of  the  play,  are  de- 
bated questions.  There  is  general  agreement  that  The  Pain- 
full  Adventures  of  Pericles,  Prince  of  Tyrey  by  George  Wilkins 
(1608),  appeared  after  the  play  had  been  acted;  but  even  this 
conclusion  is  open  to  doubt.1  The  latest  limit  for  the  date  is 
fixed  by  the  quarto,  1609;  and,  while  there  is  no  certainty  that 
the  play  in  some  form  may  not  have  been  acted  earlier,  verse 
tests  indicate  that  Shakspere' s  part  was  written  a*bout  1608. 

In  thus  accepting  1608  as  the  conjectural  date  we  have  been 
forced  to  rely  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  ' '  Marina  Story  "  2  is 
wholly  Shakspere' s.  At  least  that  is  in  part  surely  his  and 

1  There  is  probably  no  other  case  in  Elizabethan  drama  where  a  novel 
was  made  out  of  a  play  as  it  is  supposed  was  done  by  Wilkins.     If  he 
had  a  share  in  the  play,  such  a  proceeding  seems  the  more  surprising. 

2  The  last  three  acts,  with  possible  exception  of  scenes  2,  5  and  6  in 
Act  IV. 

171 


is  in  a  style  distinct  from  the  rest  of  the  play.  Some  critics,1 
however,  believe  that  he  wrote  the  entire  play;  some  believe 
that  his  share  was  very  small;2  and  there  are  all  shades  of 
opinion  as  to  his  possible  collaborators.  The  first  two  acts  are 
assigned  by  some  to  Wilkins,8  and  the  offensive  scenes  in  Act 
IV  to  Rowley.4  While  there  is  little  more  than  conjecture  in 
such  assignments,  we  are  fairly  safe  in  saying  that  three  dis- 
tinct styles  are  discernible,  that  the  first  two  acts  are  not  by 
Shakspere,  and  that  only  the  Marina  story  can  be  with  any 
certainty  assigned  to  him.5 

Working  on  these  hypotheses,  it  seems  likely  that  Shakspere 
did  not  work  directly  in  collaboration  with  the  other  author  or 
authors.  Unlike  his  shares  in  Henry  VIII  and  the  Two  Noble 
Kinsmen  Shakspere's  share  appears  quite  distinct  from  the 
rest  of  the  play.6  Neither  does  it  seem  probable  that  he  had 
much  to  do  in  planning  the  play  or  in  retouching  the  first  two 
acts.  Nevertheless,  Pericles  was  acted  by  Shakspere's  com- 
pany and  published  with  his  name,  and  he  must  to  some  extent 
be  held  responsible  for  its  final  form.  In  examining  it,  how- 
ever, as  a  play  of  his,  we  are  safest  in  keeping  pretty  closely 
to  the  Marina  part. 

Remembering  that  Shakspere's  share  in  the  play  and  its  date 
are  very  uncertain,  we  may  return  to  our  main  problem,  its 
relation  to  the  romances.  If  the  play  was  as  late  as  1608,  there 
is  a  possibility  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  influence  just  as 
in  the  romances.  If  Pericles  is  a  play  of  the  same  type  as  the 
romances,  and  if  Shakspere's  part  is  a  forecast  of  his  later  work, 
these  facts  are  of  importance  on  the  general  relationship  be- 
tween the  Beaumont-Fletcher  and  the  Shaksperean  romances. 
We  must  consider  to  what  extent  Pericles  was  a  forecast  of  the 
romances  and  to  what  extent  it  possesses  traits  of  the  two 
contemporary  series  of  romances. 

The  plot  is  taken  from  Laurence  Twine's  Patterne  of  Pain- 
full  Adventures  and  Gowrer's  Confessio  Amantis.  A  sentimental 
love  story  appears,  but  is  not  given  the  prominent  place  that 
similar  stories  receive  in  each  of  the  three  romances  and  also 
in  each  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  romances.  The  plot  is, 
however,  like  those  of  the  romances  and  particularly  like  that 

LCf.  Introduction  to  the  Bankside  Shakespeare,  Vol.  XIV.  New 
York,  1891,  by  Appleton  Morgan. 

2 See  H.  P.  Outlines  I,  p.  205. 

8  4  See  the  Transactions  of  the  New  Shakspere  Society  for  1874,  pp. 
130,  253,  and  also  for  1880-86,  p.  323,  for  articles  by  Mr.  Fleay  and  Mr. 
Boyle. 

5~The  offensive  scenes  (2,  5  and  6)  in  Act  IV  are  more  closely  connected 
with  the  Shaksperean  part  than  the  first  two  acts ;  are  in  prose  and 
less  distinguishable  in  style ;  and  on  the  whole  of  more  doubtfully 
non-Shaksperean  authorship. 

6  It  is  especially  distinct  from  Wilkins'  part,  Acts  I  and  2. 

172 


of  the  Winter's  Tale  in  dealing  with  a  long  series  of  tragic 
events  leading  to  a  happy  ending.     It  presents,  too,  a  similar 
variety  of  emotional  effects  and  a  contrast  of  tragic  and  idyllic 
elements ;     the    idyllic   elements,    however,    which   we    have  \ 
found  highly  developed  in  all  Shakspere' s  and  Beaumont  and  i       / 
Fletcher's  romances,  do  not  receive  a  similar  development  in   1    V 
Pericles.  *— I 

Considered  in  detail,  the  plot  contains  incidents,  common 
enough  in  Elizabethan  literature,  which  Shakspere  had  pre- 
viously used  arid  which  he  used  again  in  later  plays.  Thus  the 
shipwreck,  which  had  been  used  in  the  Comedy  of  Errors  and 
Twelfth  Night,  appears  later  in  the  Tempest; l  and  the  reunion  of 
Pericles  and  Thaisa  both  recalls  that  of  ^Sgeon  and  Amelia 
in  the  Comedy  of  Errors  and  anticipates  that  of  Leontes  and 
Hermione  in  a  Winter3 s  Tale.  The  story  of  Marina  is  something 
like  that  of  Perdita;  but  in  the  extraordinary  emphasis  placed 
on  the  trial  of  her  chastity,  it  is  more  like  the  story  of  Isa- 
bella in  Measure  for  Measure. 

In  Pericles,  then,  Shakspere  chose  to  dramatize  an  old  story 
which  has  some  general  and  some  detailed  resemblances  to  the 
material  he  later  used  in  the  romances.  There  is,  however, 
nothing  of  the  invention  and  ingenuity  of  the  romances  and 
little  of  their  emphasis  of  the  love  story  and  idyllic  element. 
In  general  character  the  plot  is  not  unlike  those  of  the  earlier 
comedies,  and  the  leading  motive  of  the  Marina  story  is  similar 
to  that  in  Measure  for  Measure. 

In  construction,  Pericles  is  hardly  a  play  at  all.  It  is  aston- 
ishingly undramatic.  The  story  is  largely  told  by  the  rhymed 
narrative  of  the  choruses  or  presented  in  the  dumb  shows. 
There  is  no  effort  made  to  secure  effective  dramatic  situations, 
and  no  pains  are  taken  wTith  the  denouement.  The  final  happy 
reconciliation  has  none  of  the  dramatic  importance  that  it  has 
in  the  Winter" s  Tale ;  it  is  merely  an  explanation.  In  all  the 
characteristics  of  dramatic  construction,  the  most  marked  con- 
trast exists  between  Pericles  and  the  romances  either  of  Shak- 
spere or  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

Pericles,  indeed,  is  not  only  altogether  unlike  the  romances 
of  varied  dramatic  situations  and  intense,  heightened  denoue- 
ments: it  is  so  utterly  lacking  in  dramatic  construction  that 
one  wonders  that  it  could  have  been  written  as  late  as  1608. 
Plays  of  this  archaic  style,  however,  were  not  uncommon  even 
at  so  late  a  date.  In  1 607  the  Travels  of  the  Three  English 
Brothers*  was  brought  out  by  the  Queen's  men.  The  play 
dealt  with  the  wonderful  adventures  of  the  three  Shirleys  in 

!See  Pericles  III,  i;  C.  ofE.,  I,  i,  63,  seq. ;  T.  N.,  I.,  2  ;  Tempest,  I,  i. 

2  See  Chr.  II,  p.  276.  Wilkins,  who  is  thought  to  have  had  a  share 
in  Pericles,  had  a  share  in  the  Three  Brothers.  For  an  account  of 
similar  plays,  see  p.  98,  ante. 

173 


Russia,  Turkey  and  Persia  and  the  marriage  of  one  of  them 
to  the  Sophy's  daughter.  Its  construction  is  decidedly  like 
that  of  Pericles :  dumb  shows,  narrative  choruses,  much  para- 
ding, and  no  real  dramatic  action.  It  is  repeatedly  ridiculed  in 
the  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  and  evidently  appealed  to 
the  same  vulgar  taste  that  contemporary  references  show  Pericles^ 
greatly  delighted.  We  cannot  be  sure  that  the  construction  of 
Pericles  was  by  Shakspere;  but  even  in  the  Marina  story  the 
same  archaic  methods  are  adhered  to  and  there  is  no  attempt 
to  secure  dramatic  effectiveness. 

In  construction,  then,  the  plot  of  Pericles  has  no  resemblance 
to  those  of  the  three  romances.  So  far  from  using  any  of  the 
innovations  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  Shakspere  seems  to 
have  returned  to  the  methods  then  recognized  as  primitive  and 
ridiculous  but  which  still  aroused  the  delight  of  the  vulgar. 

The  characters  of  the  play  have  little  importance  except 
Marina.  By  some  she  is  thought  to  anticipate  the  heroines  of 
the  romances.  The  similarity  of  her  situation  to  Perdita'shas 
been  noticed,  and  she  certainly  resembles  the  later  heroines 
more  than  she  does  the  women  of  the  preceding  tragedies. 
Sentimental  love,  however,  the  dominant  characteristic  of 
Imogen,  Perdita,  and  Miranda  as  well  as  of  the  Beaumont- 
Fletcher  heroines,  receives  very  slight  exploitation  in  Marina. 

J     Of  course  she  has  a  lover  and  marries  him  after  the  fashion  of 
all  heroines,  but  her  utter  devotion  to  him  is  not  the  theme  of 
her  story,  nor  is  it  her  crowning  glory.     Shakspere  used  the 
/i   sentimental  love  story  and  heroine  as  he  had  used  them  in  the 

V  1  earl yt comedies  and  in  All's  Well  and  Measure  for  Measure, 
but  not  as  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  used  them  nor  as  he  used 
them  in  the  later  romances. 

,  Marina  appears  mainly  as  a  pure  girl  who  in  the  most  trying 
circumstances  maintains  her  chastity.  The  same  motive  also 
appears  in  Imogen  and  Isabella.  In  Imogen  it  receives  a  treat- 
ment after  the  style  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  quite  unlike 
that  in  Pericles.  In  Isabella,  however,  it  receives  a  treatment 
very  similar  to  that  in  Pericles.  Her  purity  is  brought  into 
contrast  with  the  same  loathsome  aspects  of  life;  her  chastity 
endures  equally  trying  circumstances;  and  its  defense  involves 
considerable  vigorous  argument  like  Marina's.  On  the  whole 
Marina  resembles  Isabella  quite  as  much  as  the  romance  hero- 
ines. She  resembles  the  latter  in  the  nature  of  the  story  rather 
than  in  the  treatment  of  her  character. 

The  style  of  Pericles,  according  to  verse  tests,  takes  a  place  at 
about  1608  in  the  general  development  of  Shakspere' sversifica- 
'     tion.     It  shows  nothing  of  the  marked  structural  change  of 
Cymbeline  which  also  characterizes  the  other  romances.     In 

1  See  Centurie  of  Prayse. 

174 


devices  for  stage  effect,  it  is  decidedly  archaic  with  its  dumb 
shows  and  choruses.  There  is  a  dance  of  the  knights  in  armor, 
alone  and  with  their  ladies,  after  the  fashion  of  the  masque;1 
but  the  pageant  of  the  knights  and  their  devices2  is  after  the 
fashion  of  such  exhibitions  in  Jeronymo. 

On  analysis,  Pericles  thus  proves  to  be  a  play  dealing  with  a 
story  similar  to  those  of  the  romances,  but  giving  this  story 
an  entirely  different  treatment.  In  construction,  characteriza- 
tion, style,  and  general  stage  effect,  it  presents  none  of  the 
leading  traits  of  the  romance  type.  It  seems  to  have  been  one 
of  those  Elizabethan  'plays  of  adventures,'  whose  character 
and  the  character  of  the  taste  to  which  it  appealed  are  indicated 
in  the  title  page  of  the  first  quarto:  "The  late  and  much 
"admired  play,  called  Pericles,  Prince  of  Tyre,  with  the  true 
"relation  of  the  whole  Historic,  adventures  and  fortunes  of 
"the  said  Prince:  As  also  the  no  less  strange  and  worthy 
"  accidents,  in  the  Birth  and  Life  of  his  daughter  Mariana." 

A  word  remains  to  be  said  about  the  artistic  mood  of  Pericles. 
There  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  much  in  the  Shaksperean 
part  which  indicates  any  definite  mood.  There  is  some  very 
fine  phrasing  in  the  account  of  the  tempest,  a  subject  that 
constantly  appealed  to  Elizabethan  rhetoricians;  and  the  choice 
of  the  Marina  story  may  have  some  artistic  significance.  Its 
underlying  mood  seems  to  resemble  that  of  Measure  for  Measure 
as  much  as  that  of  the  Tempest.  Those  who  insist  on  the 
forgiving  serenity  of  the  romances  can  at  best  find  only  slight 
indications  of  such  a  mood  in  Pericles. 

As  a  precursor  of  the  romances,  the  most  that  can  be  said 
of  Pericles  is  that  Shakspere  was  using  material  distinct  from 
that  of  his  tragedies  and  resembling  in  some  ways  the  material 
of  the  romances;  and  that  his  artistic  mood  may  in  a  similar 
way  be  conceived  to  have  altered  from  that  of  the  tragedies 
and  to  anticipate  slightly  that  of  the  Tempest. 

Such  opinions,  however,  have  little  significance  in  connec- 
tion with  our  discussion  of  the  romances.     Pericles  is  doubtless     ^&' 
earlier  than  Shakspere 's  romances,  but  there  is  no  probability 
that  it  preceded  all  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's.   Even  if  it  did, 
the  mere  fact  that  Shakspere  used  an  old  romantic  story  is  the 
only  evidence  that  he  began  to  experiment  with  the  romantic   • 
type  earlier  than  did  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 
'*  About  1608,  Philaster  was  acted  as  well  as  Pericles ;  and  two 
•  more  different  plays  can  hardly  be  imagined.     They  not  only     ^ 
differ  entirely  in  their  methods  of  construction  and  their  general 
stage  effect;  they  differ  as  well  in  their  treatment  of  the  senti- 
X^mental  love  story,  of  the  heroine's  character,  and  of  the  happy 
ending.     Pericles  was  a  return  to  archaic  methods,  Philaster 


,  3,  98  and  106. 
,  2. 


175 


was  a  remarkable  dramatic  innovation.  Probably  shortly  after 
these  two  plays,  came  Cymbeline ;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt 
which  play  it  followed.  If  Shakspere  had  already  experimented 
with  romantic  material  and  in  a  romantic  mood,  he  had  certainly 
riot  determined  the  characteristics  of  a  new  romantic  type. 
If  we  make  all  possible  allowance  for  the  influence  of  Pericles 
and  of  all  other  plays  dealing  with  romantic  stories  upon  the 
work  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  the  evidence  remains  unim- 
paired that  their  type  of  romance  was  an  innovation  and  that 
it  distinctly  influenced  Shakspere' s  romances.  Pericles,  how- 
ever, seems  to  me  in  no  appreciable  degree  a  precursor  of  the 
romances,  but  rather  a  return  to  the  old  chronological,  narra- 
tive dramatization  of  stories  of  wonderful  adventures,  such  as 
were  popular  on  the  stage  even  later  than  1608.  At  any  rate, 
for  our  discussion  of  the  relations  between  the  romances  of 
Shakspere  and  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  it  has  either  little 
or  no  significance. 


5ITY 


176 


ERRATA. 

Page  37,  line  u  ;  for  period  after  "side,"  substitute  a  comma. 
Page  41,  line  6  of  the  foot-note ;  the  reference  should  be  to  page  31. 
Page  43,  line  15;  insert  a  reference  to  the  foot-note  after  "doors." 
Page  58,  line  5;  "the  two  allusions" — omit  "the." 
Page  74  ;  Fleay's  identification  of  the  "miraculous  maid"  is  correct. 

The  Fasting  of  a  Maiden  of  Confolens  was  published  in  1604,  with 

introductory  verses  by  Dekker. 

Pages  91  and  93  ;  for  Lover^s  Progress,  read  Lovers'  Progress, 
Page  107,  foot-note;  the  Wit  of  a  Woman,  probably  acted  1600-1604 

is  another  play  which  I  have  not  seen. 

Page  112,  line  4  ;  read  "  as  that  of  I/eontes." 
Page  125,  line  23 ;  for  "thown,"  read  "thrown." 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY— TEL.  NO.  642-3405 
This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

SEP  13  19690 
RECEIVE 


SEP-V'69-g 

ImOAN   WEPT, 


MAY  13  78 


LD21A-60m-6,'69 
(J9096slO)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


r 


YC  40478 


/GS5I2 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


